Category: Silence

From the moment you wake up, there’s noise everywhere from your alarm clock to the cars outside to your internal thoughts. We live in a noisy world filled with distractions and there isn’t much room for silence but recently, people have understood the value of silence and solitude. I will be sharing with you 6 benefits of being silent and embracing silence and we are starting right now.

You can find the aha moments that spark a brilliant solution to your problem when you are in silence. In a Harvard Business Article, David Rock and Josh Davis explain that flashes of insight can be fostered by specific conditions. Most of us have a packed calendar and we are busy with work, meetings, and other daily tasks. As a result, you are surrounded by people or your mind is busy with work. Insightful moments are just like silence, you have to find it through the noise. Research has shown that silence helps you make better decisions. People in the study made smarter decisions after meditating for just 15 minutes. While you might not be into meditation, you don’t need to meditate to reap this benefit. No matter how busy you are, take breaks between meetings and work to find some alone time. Go to an empty room or maybe even go for a quick walk outside. You then want to focus on your inner thoughts and ignore what’s going on around you. It’s fine to let your mind wander because it goes hand in hand with internal focus. Give yourself some silence and you might find your next breakthrough insight.

You will be happier overall. There are a lot of philosophies and religions with different views on how to be happy but there are some similarities, especially in how they view silence. Silence could be a potential solution to the lifelong question of how one is happy. If you are more extroverted, you might question how can silence help but let me explain. When you are in silence or solitude, you are able to go within yourself and examine yourself. The concept is very easy but not a lot of people do it. Some people are just too busy in their day-to-day lives but the reason why most people don’t do it is that they are afraid of finding the ugliness inside. When you are by yourself and speaking to yourself, you get uncomfortable because you fear what’s inside. If you are resisting silence and solitude, you might have something that needs to be dealt with on the inside. If you can deal with that, you will be happier. If you don’t deal with what’s bothering you internally, it will continue to bother you. Meditation is one of the best ways to reap this benefit but if you don’t want to, you can just sit there in silence self-reflecting and going within.

You can cut out filler words in conversation. Silence makes many people uncomfortable so they talk to fill up the silence. Most of them use filler words when talking so that their brain can catch up to what they are saying but the same result can be achieved by pausing. People use filler words such as um and like instead of pausing because it seems more natural than pausing. A lot of people are uncomfortable with silence so they rather use filler words than pause. If you can embrace the silence and cut out filler words, you will be able to get your message across better. Research has shown that conversational speech has short or .2 seconds, medium or .6 seconds, and long or over 1-second pauses. Great public speakers pause for 2 to 3 seconds or sometimes longer. When pausing, it might feel like forever at first because we tend to think faster than we can speak but if you keep practicing, it will feel more natural. The pause shows that you are cool and collected and you still have time to collect your thoughts.

You see the world differently. When you become comfortable with silence, you view the world in a different way. You are able to appreciate your surroundings and interact with them differently. There’s a musician by the name of John Cage who reaped this benefit and wanted to show other people how to so he created a piece called 4 minutes and 33 seconds. The song is simply 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. Cage didn’t make it as a joke though. What Cage was really after was so the audience could listen to the sounds of the world with the same attention they would normally devote to a music piece. The piece was played in the Maverick Concert Hall where there are walls open to the outside. The audience was able to listen to the sounds of the outside world during the 4 minutes and 33 seconds. By being silent or embracing the silence, you are able to be more aware of what is going around you and observe the world better.

You are more creative. Quiet people are usually creators in some shape or form because that is how they best express themselves. Whether it is through writing, art, or video, quiet people tend to show their creativity through creating. This isn’t to say that someone more extroverted isn’t good at writing, art, or creating videos. Someone more extroverted might be just as good but their work might show their outgoing personality more than their creativity. Even if you are more extroverted, you can still be more creative by being more silent. The reason why quiet people tend to be more creative is that when they have some solitude, they let their imagination run wild. They visualize a lot which helps with their creativity. Having some alone time will help you be more creative.

You become more humble. You know the quote that says work hard in silence and let success make the noise? It’s the quiet people who tend to work hard in silence and let success make the noise. Quiet people also tend to be more humble because they have more self-awareness and they understand themselves and their weaknesses better. Being more humble is like a side effect of the other benefits of being silent in a sense because someone that is quieter doesn’t always have to be humble. Regardless of that, if you can embrace silence and solitude, you can be more humble, which in turn, will make you more likable and approachable.

The dosed silence: a form of manipulation

Dosed silence can be a form, like many others, of aggression passive. It is defined as a calculated management of communication in which silence plays a primary role and which aims to control and weaken another person or his position. It is not always manipulated through words, but it is also done through silence. This last tactic is very harmful because it has a more chameleonic mask.

It’s called dosed silence because it’s not constant, like when someone ignores you or stops talking to you. In this type of manipulation, the encounter and the disagreement, the expression and the lack of it are mixed. All this is carried out in an arbitrary manner. It is the manipulator who decides the rhythm of the communication in the search of his interests for which the other is only an instrument.

As silence itself is a form of expression that is very ambiguous, it is usual for the victim to feel very confused or distressed. He does not finally know what to think and spends a lot of time and emotional energy trying to guess what each silence means. You feel insecure and doubt any step. Many times he ends up thinking that it is she who has a problem or does not know how to interpret or gives an exaggerated importance to these silences.

How is the silence manifested dosed?

Dosed silence manifests itself in many ways. A very common one occurs when the manipulator wants you to talk about everything first. It is not a courtesy. It lets you talk simply to probe you, take information from you, and study yourself. On the other hand, be careful, not everyone who lets you talk first is manipulating you. It is necessary that this behavior be frequent or constant, intentional, and not corresponding. That person will speak little of himself or will do so with evasiveness.

Another way in which the dosed silence is presented is when someone suddenly breaks the communication and then unexpectedly picks it up again. . Stop answering calls or messages without giving any explanation. Then it appears as if nothing had happened. And if you ask or ask him about the reasons for his distance, he will tell you that nothing happens, that they are wrong impressions of you.

Similarly, there is silence dosed when a kind of censorship is imposed on certain issues, without explanation. Simply when you try to talk about it, the other person evades the matter or refuses to give details. This, of course, applies to issues that are important to both parties. The negative is not that someone does not want to talk about something in particular, but that it is systematic and that no explanation is given, knowing that this attitude affects the other.

Finally, a very usual form of dosed silence is to silence something because, supposedly, not knowing it is better for the other. It applies to matters that directly concern the person to whom information is being hidden. Some call it ‘becoming interesting’, but it is definitely the wrong name.

The word is power and silence too

What distinguishes a manipulative silence from a spontaneous silence is the purpose. Who comes to this strategy of parapenting in the absence of words do so with the aim of controlling the other? He knows that it generates confusion, and projects insecurity, and that is precisely what he is looking for. Hiding in silence leaves the other without the tools to act on equal terms.

Do not confuse manipulative silence with shyness. Not everyone has the facility to communicate spontaneously. There are those who need time and understanding to express what they think and feel. They do not speak for shyness, insecurity, or lack of trust. However, their goal is not to control others, but rather to protect themselves.

The dosed silence is distinguished by the effect it generates on the other. It alternates with seemingly ‘normal’ communication. It is an absence of words that gives the sensation of hiding something. As it is subtle, it can hardly be confronted, under penalty of being accused of paranoid or fanciful. However, however subtle it is, it causes a lot of damage in a relationship and, particularly, to the person who is the subject of that practice.

This type of silence can be extremely aggressive, especially because it immerses communication in muddy terrain. Misunderstandings and guesswork are the order of the day. And the abuse as such is hardly exposed, except for its effects. If the other, after having pointed out his attitude, does not cease in this toxic practice, there is no other way out but a direct and explicit rejection and distance.

Silence is indispensable to regenerating the brain

Silence has been the source of many reflections throughout all ages. At the same time, we have saturated the places where we live with so much noise that it is increasingly difficult to find it. This makes more and more people who do not hear noises experience an abyss within themselves.

We have an ear that is currently hyperstimulated. The most serious thing is that almost all of the auditory stimuli we receive from abroad are more or less alarming. Car roars, hustle, loud music, whistles, bells … well … nothing that inspires tranquility.

Experimenting with the silence

Beyond these stimuli affecting our emotional state, science has also proven that it affects the brain. According to a study carried out in Germany by the Research Center for Regenerative Therapies Dresden, there are brain processes that can only be carried out in silence.

Until recently it was thought that neurons were unable to regenerate. However, with the development of neurogenesis, it has been proven that this is a mistake. It is not yet clear what exactly promotes neuronal and brain regeneration. But there are already valuable clues about it, and one of them is silence.

The German researchers initially made an experiment with a group of mice. The study consisted of leaving them in complete silence for two hours a day. At the same time, an observation of their brains would be made to see if this caused any change.

The result was blunt. After a time of being subjected to this routine, it could be observed that in all the mice studied there had been an increase in the number of cells within the hippocampus. This is the region of the brain that regulates emotions, memory, and learning.

The experts also found that the new nerve cells were progressively integrated into the central nervous system and then specialized in different functions. In conclusion, silence produced a very positive change in the animals’ brains.

Silence helps to structure information

The brain never rests, even when in a state of calm we are completely still or asleep. This wonderful organ is still working but in a different way. When the body rests, other processes begin to develop that complement those performed when we are active.

What basically happens is that a kind of debugging occurs. The brain evaluates the information and experiences to which we have been exposed throughout the day. Then organize and integrate the relevant information and discard what is not important.

This process is completely unconscious but produces conscious effects. That is why it happens that sometimes we find answers during sleep. Or we managed to see things from a new point of view, after resting for a few hours.

The interesting thing about all this is that a similar process also occurs when we are silent. The absence of auditory stimuli has almost the same effect as rest. Silence, in general, leads us to think about ourselves and this cleanses emotions and reaffirms identity.

The important effects of stress

Silence not only makes us more intelligent, creative, and safe. Silence also has very positive effects on states of distress. Human beings are very sensitive to noise. So much so that many times we woke up startled by an object that fell or by a strange sound.

An investigation conducted at Cornell University found that children who live near airports maintain a high level of stress. And not only this. They also have higher blood pressure and high rates of cortisol, the stress hormone.

Fortunately, the opposite is also true. And this was evidenced by a study from the University of Pavia, in which it was verified that only two minutes of absolute silence are more enriching than listening to relaxing music. In fact, it was evidenced that blood pressure decreased and that people managed to feel more awake and calm after this little bath of silence.

As can be seen, silence produces great intellectual and emotional benefits. We could say that keeping you silent, at least for small periods a day, is a determining factor in brain health. And with that, a decisive element is to improve our emotional state, health, and quality of life.

In one effective conversation between a person who seeks help and the professional they have turned to, it can be witnessed the use of counseling skills. Those skills are a very important part of relationship building between the client and the counselor because they are viewed as the building blocks (McLeod, 2011). There is a range of different skills that are used in a counseling conversation starting with attending and ending with witnessing (McLeod, 2011). The counseling relationship creates space for conversations that are typically about something that has happened in the client’s life such as dilemmas, conflicts, or issues (McLeod, 2011). Individuals seeking counseling may have previously tried seeking help without achieving a desirable outcome so it is very important that counselors use counseling skills appropriately in order to provide the necessary help. In this essay, three skills will be discussed: attending, questioning, and the use of silence. My understanding of these skills will be presented by connecting them with an experience from my childhood. Finally, my future learning goals will be presented.

During the counseling session, the counselor’s attention should focus on the client (McLeod, 2011). In order to engage in the conversation, the counselor should concentrate on the present moment (Rigby, 2001). This is part of the skill of attending which shows the client that the counselor is listening (McLeod, 2011). Moreover, attending is giving physical attention to another person (Bolton, 1986). The full attention of the counselor is required in order to support clients in finding a resolution to the issues presented through greater self-understanding. This could also support the client to find solutions to problems in the future (Manthei & Munro, 1997). Moreover, Smaby and Maddux (2011) suggest that through the skill of attending, clients could establish if the counselor is ready to listen and help.

Egan (1994) presents the important aspects of attentive conversation and suggests it consists of 5 characteristics – sitting properly, open posture, leaning forward and looking interested, eye contact, and remaining relaxed (SOLER). These aspects contribute to non-verbal communication which according to Rigby (2001) is very important for attending. Egan (1994) suggests that sitting at a comfortable angle facing the client shows that the counselor is ready to engage in conversation and an open posture conveys openness (Egan, 1994). Leaning forward and maintaining eye contact shows that the counselor is interested and engaged in the conversation (Egan, 1994). Remaining relaxed helps clients to not feel the tension and share at their own pace (Egan, 1994).

I consider attending as one of my strengths because I used to be a football player in my home country Bulgaria. In sports, individuals have to be 100% focused in order to perform well. Before every training, my coach used to say, “shake your head and go on the pitch!” He wanted the players to be fully invested in the training. I am very grateful to him because he taught me the importance of attention and discipline. Even when watching members of my team playing, I could see that when a team member has not focused their eyes were not on the ball, they were not relaxed and they were standing with crossed arms. All this resulted in a performance that was not good enough which led to their substitution. I wanted to be a regular starting player so before every training session I used to try hard to think only about football for the duration of the game. After more than 10 years of training, I adopted attending to other aspects of life. For example, before football training, I was easily distracted, which made studying very difficult. With the skill of attending, I discovered that if I want to be successful, I have to fully invest myself in it.

I have found attending very useful during the triads. I was able to easily maintain focus on the client by using my football coach’s method of clearing my head before the session. The feedback I received from the observers was very positive and it was reported that I maintained good eye contact. By focusing on the client, I was able to mimic their movement (In that case when the client leaned forward at the beginning of the session I leaned forward too). Moreover, Geldard and Geldard (2001) suggested that this matching of non-verbal behavior can help the clients relax and can enhance the counseling process. The feedback also suggested that I was very invested in the client, using the moments when the client looked elsewhere to quickly check the clock without being noticed and continue eye contact. The client provided feedback that they felt listened to and because of this, felt comfortable sharing more than anticipated.

I will continue improving my skills by following the SOLER (Egan, 1994) method in future triads and client sessions. Furthermore, I will be researching further into the use of attending and will also continue playing football by paying more attention to body movement.

The second skill that I will talk about is questioning. Questions represent linguistic forms for which the main purpose is to receive information and answers (McLeod, 2011). Neukrug (2012) suggests that in counseling the number of questioning techniques can determine solutions to a client’s problems. However, questions have to be minimal and appropriately asked (Hough, 2014). Questions can be both helpful and problematic. McLeod (2011) suggests that one of the risks of asking questions is that the client may lose the focus of the conversation. However, Hough (2014) suggests that questions can be successfully used in counseling but the questions should be as open as possible. McLeod (2011) states that being a counselor consists of using the conscious approach of asking and not using questions that sound like they are for granted. One of the main factors in questioning is that questions should be asked to facilitate the client and not to answer curiosity (Hough, 2014).

McLeod (2011) suggests that question types suitable for counseling are open, closed, and hypothetical. Open questions can encourage clients to explore their problems further whereas closed questions are focused on specific information (McLeod, 2011). Hypothetical questions are usually future-focused and support the client to consider new possibilities and outcomes (Newman, 2000).

Most counselors report difficulties in not asking questions (McLeod, 2011; Hough, 2014). However, for me asking questions is very difficult because I am scared of asking inappropriate questions. Throughout childhood, I was very curious and used to ask about everything – the origins of a certain food, the use of a certain object, and the intentions of others. I used to make my dad angry because of the many questions I asked.

I stopped being so curious when I was in first grade and I asked a question that the other children considered stupid and funny. They all laughed which made me feel very sad and I cried. I was 7 years old so I think I was crying about many things. I do not remember what question I asked, but I still remember how unhappy I felt for asking it. This experience has made me anxious about asking questions.

I found questioning really challenging in the triads and GRP. During the final triads which were specifically for questioning skills, I was struggling to formulate good questions that could facilitate the client to continue speaking. I was very nervous and wanted to be the last person in the role of counselor. When my turn arrived, I felt so anxious about the thought of asking problematic questions. Before the triad, I was reading the lecture slides again to memorize some examples and use them during the triad. Despite the nervousness and anxiety, I managed to practice in the triad and ask three questions. It was challenging to think of the questions but I still did it. The feedback suggested I was nervous but nothing was mentioned about the questions which made me feel better. During the GRP, I was also very nervous and did not ask any questions which resulted in not knowing how to support my group with the task.

After the lecture and triad about questioning, I used the hot-penning task to write about the reasons behind my nervousness with questions. I had previously recorded in my personal journal that I found the idea of writing whatever is on my mind for 3 minutes without stopping very helpful (Radkov, 2019). Writing about my experiences with questioning again, makes me feel more relieved.

For my future learning, I need to practice further questioning by completing online question paraphrasing exercises similar to those presented during the lecture. Furthermore, I will read more extensively about the appropriate use of questions in counseling.

The third skill to be explored is the use of silence. Hough (2014) suggests that in order to listen effectively, it is sometimes necessary to remain silent and that clients require silence in order to use the space to reflect. Moreover, McLeod (2011, p.63) states that “the spaces between words are highly significant in any counseling conversation.”

The use of silence can be both appropriate and inappropriate. The advantage of silence is that it can help the client and the counselor to gather their thoughts. It can also give the counselor time to reflect and provide the client with control of the conversation (McLeod, 2011). However, sometimes the client can feel uncomfortable and according to Rogers (1942), this can occur before the therapeutic relationship is established.

Silence is a skill that I consider a strength and weakness. I use silence to allow myself and the client time to reflect. I learned from my parents that silence is very powerful. I was taught that if I did not have anything to say, it was better to not say anything and use the time to think. This had a great impact on me because as previously mentioned, I was a very curious child and was not always thinking through what I asked and said. In addition, I have learned to use silence as a skill through the observation of others (Bandura, 1977). The nursery school was the first place where I observed that when you do not know anything you stay silent. Moreover, when the class did not know the answer to a question, the tutors encouraged us to take time and think.

I found silence very useful during the triads because I was able to allow the client time to think at his own pace and also allow myself an opportunity to summarise the session so far. This made the final summary easier. However, the use of silence can be challenging because you do not know how the other person will react. I frequently use pauses and perhaps rely on them too much. In one of the triads, when I was observing, I found that the client found the silence awkward. This made me realize that I need to increase my understanding of the use of silence because in the future I will not know how the client may feel about this and it may have a negative impact on the session.

For further learning, I will definitely try and utilize silence later in the counseling session rather than close to the beginning because it may feel uncomfortable. Moreover, in future triads, I will try to observe the time when silence is used in order to explore the period of time required for the effective use of silence.

This essay discussed the skills of attending, questioning, and the use of silence in counseling sessions based on my triad and GRP experience. From this, I identified aspects of my personal strengths and weaknesses. Attending is a skill that requires the counselor’s full focus (McLeod, 2011) and I consider this a strength because of my experiences with football training. Questioning is a skill that I found very challenging and I need to develop my skills in how to ask suitable questions. The use of silence can be very useful but it has its risks and I need to learn not to rely on it too much.

When assessing my current counseling skills, I am still at the beginning of my professional journey. My future learning plans involve further reading, practicing, and most importantly trying.

“We live in the age of noise. Silence is almost extinct.”

In Book of the Week, Philosopher and adventurer Erling Kagge – the first person to reach the ‘three poles’ of North, South, and the summit of Everest – explores the power of silence. He asks why we need it, how we lost it, and where we might go to find it again.

Silence can be a sign of loneliness, boredom, or sorrow. But in this cacophonous world of traffic, smartphones, flight paths, and funfairs, it is also the window to a wealth of wonders…

Silence allows us to feel present

“Antarctica,” says Erling, “is the quietest place I’ve ever been.” He explains how the silence that he encountered on his Antarctic expedition allowed him to feel more present: “I became more and more attentive to the world of which I was a part. I was neither bored nor interrupted. I was alone with my own thoughts and ideas… I was present in my own life.”

We can’t all head off to an icy wasteland at a moment’s notice, but finding a silent space – be it a bedroom, some quiet corner of a garden, or a toilet cubicle – can help us to take a moment out of the rush and clamor of our daily routines and reconnect with ourselves. Erling believes that we can all find our “internal silence” and suggests “standing in the shower… sitting in front of a crackling fire, swimming across a forest lake, or taking a walk over a field. All these can be experiences of perfect stillness.”

Silence gives us space to think

Silence is “a key to unlock new ways of thinking,” says Erling, and science supports the philosopher’s theory. Even without the stimulus of sound, our brains remain active and dynamic.

A 2001 study defined a “default mode” of brain function, explaining that a “resting” brain is still constantly at work, absorbing and evaluating information. Subsequent research has shown that this default mode also helps us to self-reflect. The 2013 paper Frontiers in Human Neuroscience states that when the brain rests it is able to integrate internal and external information into “a conscious workspace.”

Silence and rest could be the key to our best creative thinking and our greatest ideas.

Silence is a powerful tool in conversation

In conversation or debate, it is easy to forget the power of silence. But staying quiet is a tool that we all have in our conversational toolbox. In the words of the Roman orator Cicero, “Silence is one of the great arts of conversation.”

Silence can be the space between an unhelpful outburst of feeling and a considered response. By taking a pause you can then speak more calmly and wisely. It also shows strength and confidence in an argument. “Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence,” said Leonardo da Vinci.

But as well as helping us to defeat an opponent, it can help us to nurture our relationships.

By staying silent, you are naturally listening more and giving others the opportunity to share.

Silence might actually help our brains to grow

In 2013, biologist Imke Kirste was testing the effects of sound on the brains of mice. The results were surprising: the sounds had no lasting impact yet two hours of silence a day prompted cell development in the hippocampus, the part of the brain that helps us to form memories. It wasn’t sound itself but the very absence of it that was creating new cells in the brains of the mice and, although the growth of new brain cells doesn’t necessarily have health benefits, these cells seemed to become functioning neurons.

If a link between silence and the generation of neurons can be established in humans too, there’s a chance that silence could be used to help patients with conditions associated with decreasing neurogenesis in the hippocampus, like dementia and depression.

Silence is the antidote to social media

“Anticipating the noise of a screen or keyboard is addictive,” warns Erling. “The more we are inundated, the more we wish to be distracted… We check and recheck our phones like a one-armed bandit, in the attempt to achieve satisfaction.” But rather than finding fulfillment, “this form of noise engenders anxiety and negative feelings.” We might be hooked on social media, but it doesn’t mean we’re happy.

“Silence,” says Erling, “is the opposite of all this. It’s about getting inside of what you’re doing… not living through other people and other things.”

It’s might be a daunting thought, but try a tech blackout for a few hours. Build these breaks up slowly until you can go for a whole day without your phone or tablet. The absence of those pings, rings, and buzzes might just make you happier.

Silence helps to relieve stress

Florence Nightingale wrote, “Unnecessary noise is the cruelest absence of care that can be inflicted on sick or well.” The nurse argued that every needless sound could cause alarm, distress, and sleep loss for recovering patients. Modern research supports her views: correlations have been discovered between high blood pressure and chronic noise – like roads and airports.

Noise can also result in elevated levels of stress hormones. It is thought that sound waves activate the amygdalae, which is associated with memory formation and emotion, causing a release of stress hormones. This process can occur even as we sleep.

Silence, however, has the opposite effect. It helps to release tension in the brain and body. A study published in Heart journal found that two minutes of silence can prove to be even more calming than listening to “relaxing” music. It’s time to turn those tunes down…

In England and Wales, the right to remain silent protects individuals from the adversative effects of not communicating through criminal trials. According to GOV.UK, it is also recognized as the entitlement toward self-incrimination. It is used whenever it is suspected that the individuals getting spoken to have been involved in one or even more criminal offenses and, as a result, may face criminal charges. Different definitions exist for the right to silence and the privilege toward self-incrimination; in fact, they are related. The right of any individual in either judicial matter to fail to answer queries that may exonerate them is the privilege of self-incrimination. The right to remain silent, at the same time, pertains to the repercussions of a suspect’s failure to respond to police queries or give evidence at his trial. The European Convention on Human Rights also guarantees the right to silence. Offenders in a criminal case are not obliged to respond to any queries, but they may choose not to testify in the hearings. In addition, there is no requirement to help law enforcement officers with their investigative process. Similarly, I agree that the defendant’s silence should not be used in the form of evidence against them in a criminal proceeding. The defendants are not required to indicate that they did not commit the crime. A right to silence protects the innocent by shielding them from self-incrimination. This implies that, in the hypothesis, the defendant is not required to say anything. The decision to stay silent is a fundamental human right. Far more, the court should base its decision solely on the other evidence admissible in court.

Notably, a right to silence gives suspects who are innocent and are otherwise forced to talk the option of remaining silent. Innocent accused persons profit from this if the likelihood that indirect evidence discredits their remarks is larger than the likelihood that direct evidence exonerates them. However, according to Allen and colleagues (2016), Innocent accused persons decide to talk in the existence of a right to silence gain since it stimulates the guilty accused persons to stay silent, lowering the likelihood that innocently accused persons whose declarations are rebutted by proof are wrongly accused. If the price for confession is minimal, accused persons will never confess, whether they have a right to remain silent or not. In the utter lack of a right to silence, culpable suspects are more likely to confess if the price for confession is significant. Cryer et al. (2019) state that innocent accused persons benefit directly from the right herein since a jury cannot imprison a silent accused person in the utter lack of evidence of wrongdoing. Also, innocent accused persons benefit indirectly from the said right since it ignites guilty accused persons to stay silent instead of confessing. Since practicing one’s right to silence earns a more significant benefit than admitting guilty, accused person puddles with innocent accused individuals by talking, with a lower chance of the existence of a right to silence than those with the utter lack of a right to silence. In the presence of the said right, the court is less likely to convict the accused person if the facts contradict the accused’s statements.

The right to silence also rewards innocent accused who might have stayed quiet even if the privilege to silence did not exist. In the apparent lack of a right to silence, innocent accused would instead remain silent than talk if clear evidence is much more insightful than indirect evidence. Since direct evidence is much more probable to implicate guilty accused than innocent accused persons, the expense of silence is lesser for innocent accused persons than for guilty accused persons. Innocent accused persons can thus distinguish themselves from the guilty accused by staying silent. Even then, in the utter lack of a right to silence, the innocent accused people who remain silent are indicted with a strong likelihood, even though the direct evidence does not quite indict them. In the absence of a right to silence, an innocently accused person who stays silent is found guilty hardly if and only if definitive proof indicts them. In the absence of a right to silence, an innocently accused person who remains silent is found guilty hardly if and only if conclusive evidence indicts them.

The right to stay silent strengthens an innocent accused person’s protection against wrongful imprisonment. Article 6 of the ECHR establishes minimum requirements for a fair hearing, stating that everybody has the right to due process and public hearing before an independent judiciary set by law to determine their constitutional rights and responsibilities or any criminal case brought against them. Moreover, the right to remain silent shields innocent accused who are unable to provide exculpatory proof from the dangers of compelled testimony. An innocently accused person, in distinctive, may be concerned that he will be painted guilty on display after expert cross-examination. Thus, if an innocently accused person decides to remain silent, he believes that giving testimony will improve his possibility of a guilty verdict. Adversely, Daly (2014) states that the right to silence advantages the innocent by triggering the guilty to keep silent, thus also increasing the legitimacy of innocent accused persons’ statements. The insinuation that an innocently accused person always gains from giving an evidentiary declaration underpins this debate because the evidence in the case never invalidates an innocent accused’s assertion. According to Billing (2016), given the prospect that evidence presented at trial invalidates their claims, in the existence or inexistence of a right to silence, the innocently accused person may choose to stay silent. The principal motivation for a right to silence would be that it enables the court to draw a beneficial conclusion from an accused person’s choice not to stay silent. Somewhat more importantly, the fact that innocent accused persons may remain silent in the utter lack of a right to silence describes why restricting the right to silence, as England did in 1994, may not result in all accused persons speaking.

In 2018, Igwe highlighted that Section 34 permits an inference to be taken if the accused person remains silent. Thus, if asked under caution just before trial, they rely on a valid point at court that they might sufficiently be already anticipated to consider when asked. Nevertheless, just because an accused person refuses to respond to questions does not necessarily guarantee that an inference can be taken. The adverse inference stipulation is sparked only when they later attempt to present an account or clarification. In M [2012] 1 Cr App R 26, it was determined that the judge erroneously allowed the court to make an inference from the involved appellant’s failed attempt to acknowledge factual information all through the question-and-answer session since there were no factors for that. The police that interviewed the appellant interrogated him concerning the said sexual assault on an inappropriate date. Due to that, the appellant depended on information connected to the suspected sexual assault date of occurrence. The jury found difficulties figuring out how the appellant could have sufficiently been needed to say much from those situations. The judge in Lee [2015] EWCA Crim 420 correctly permitted the court to pull adverse inferences from the accused’s quietness in the question-and-answer session owing to his arrest for just an assault on his companion. Even though officers did not have specifics of the accusations at the time, the queries were targeted at examining whether or not the spouse had been violently attacked.

When an accused person remains silent during a court hearing, an inference can be drawn under Section 35. As per Igwe (2018), this segment, nevertheless, protects an inference from becoming stretched whenever it makes it appear to the court that perhaps the suspect’s mental or physical situation makes it unsuitable for him to show testimony. The court must be satisfied that now the accused is aware that failing to provide proof or respond to questions without a valid reason may result in inferences becoming sketched against them. Prosecutors are informed that there could be situations where it is unreasonable to anticipate the accused to bring up the relevant facts. In this sense, caution must be taken when considering cases that involve susceptible accused like young people and those with mental health conditions. In deciding if an adverse inference should indeed be derived, the Court of Appeal in the matter of R v Howell [2003] Crim. L.R. 405 retained that the type of situation most probable to validate silence will become the accused’s situation ill-health, particularly mental disorder; ambiguity; inebriation; shock.

Section 36 enables an inference to be pulled when an individual refuses to account for artifacts, substances, or traces discovered: on his individual, on his garments or outerwear, or elsewhere in his possession during the time of the arrest. An investigation team should have a reasonable belief that the existence of such a threshold, substantiation, or entity is related to that individual’s involvement in the commission of the offense indicated by the policeman. Section 37 permits an inference to be extracted if an accused person fails to refuse to address his existence in a specific location in which it is suspected that he’d have committed a crime. Similarly, sections six and 6A of DVCVA 2004 enable inferences to be still pulled if an individual tries to give evidence when prosecuted with an offense under Section 5 of such an Act, causing or letting children or vulnerable persons suffer physical harm needlessly. In the scenario of Quinn [2017] EWCA Crim 1071, the judge in the case told the jury, ‘they do not have to give any account, but you may think they could and chose not to, and you have every right to ask why.’ The Court of Appeal determined that the accused’s refusal to obtain any account once interrogated about the events that led up to the person’s death was reasonable under the situation and not excessively derogatory.

Further to that, there are six sets of conditions before an adverse inference can be sketched in situations where there is a failure to bring up a valid point when asked questions. The Court of Appeal was asked in R v Argent [1997] 2 Cr.App.R. 27 if the judge in the case made a mistake in statute by neglecting to exclude proof from the appellant’s second interview sessions with the police. Lord Bingham outlined the six structured requirements that must be met first before adverse inference could be sketched in cases where such a pertinent fact was not mentioned when asked questions. That there must be legal action taken against a person who has committed an offense. The accusation’s refusal to address the truth at a court hearing should have existed before the charging of an Accused. The accusation’s inability must have taken place throughout a constable’s interrogation under cautiousness. The interrogation must’ve been aimed at determining whether or not the suspected offense was engaged. The suspect’s accusation of refusal to address any fact depended on his defense in the deliberations. As a result, the accusation’s inability would have been to acknowledge that, under the situation at the time, the suspect might be assumed to mention when asked questions. When Section 34 of such CJPOA 1994 appears to apply, a court could sketch such inferences from quietness as would seem appropriate in deciding if the suspect is guilty of the crime prosecuted. Section 34 could also be used to determine whether to disregard allegations and whether there is no cause of action.

No adverse inferences could be derived if the arguments were unknown to the accused individuals at the moment when they failed to disclose information at the interview or charge. The detective is not required by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act of 1996 to uncover the state’s case to the accused or one’s legal advisor before the start of questioning. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal had also retained in R v Argent [1997] 2 Cr App R 27, R v Imran as well as Hussain [1997] Crim L.R. 754 CA, or even R v Roble [1997] CLR 346 that even if the officers reveal almost nothing about the scenario against the accused, such that a legal representative cannot offer helpful advice to their customer, after which it may be a valid reason for the lawyer to recommend the accused to stay silent. This implies that the investigator interviewing or conducting an investigation of the accused person should provide enough details for the accused person to know the nature and situation of the arrest. Nevertheless, there is also no necessity that the officers to display a cause of action prior to interrogating the suspect or provide updated guidance to the defense attorney prior to interrogating the accused. The prosecution must be notified of all pre-interview declarations to evaluate if an adverse inference can be correctly dragged at the court hearing and predict and start preparing for any defensive system assertions on the subject. If the officers would not include this documentation in the case papers, the prosecution must demand it.

I acknowledge that the accused person’s silence should not be used against them as proof in a trial court hearing. Offenders are not expected to justify they did not commit a crime. This indicates that, in theory, the accused is not forced to speak. The choice to stay silent is a fundamental human right. The said right is a practical component for accused persons who are innocent. A request to silence allows suspects who are innocent but are otherwise forced to speak to remain silent. Innocent accused people benefit from this if the probability of indirect evidence discrediting their statements is greater than the likelihood of direct evidence exonerating them. The right to silence also helps innocent accused have remained silent even if the right to silence did not exist. In the absence of a right to silence, innocent accused would prefer to stay silent rather than speak if clear evidence is far more insightful than indirect evidence. Similarly, the right to remain silent reinforces the safeguards of innocent accused people against unlawful detention. The right protects innocent accused people who cannot provide exculpatory evidence from the risks of compelled testimony. In particular, an innocently accused person may be worried that he will be decorated guilty on the stand after expert cross-examination. Even though some circumstances in which an inference can be drawn if the accused person remains silent. There are also a set of conditions before an adverse inference can be imposed in situations where there is a failure to bring up a valid point when asked questions.

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s Spiral of Silence theory has been constantly disputed since its formation in the 1970s, in terms of its key assumptions and what it represents coinciding with an ever-changing media environment for individuals to navigate through. The model basis for this theory still having continued contemporary relevance today is questionable, as this essay will explore behavioral changes in individuals, with regards to social interactions progressing towards an online rather than offline world, which affect and undermine the original model of the Spiral of Silence. The basic assumptions of the theory are that people will not voice their true opinion if they believe that their opinion is in a minority, and will in fact conform to the majority to avoid isolation, an isolation that the environment around them threatens in order to achieve societal cohesion. People are more willing to speak out if they believe their opinion to be part of a majority, therefore they will have greater support for what is said. This willingness to speak out creates a perception that the majority view is greater than it is, which causes a spiraling effect. A spiraling effect in the silence of the minority, and the majority view transitioning from the public opinion to a ruling opinion. This is the main framework and cycle that this theory operates on. This is a very basic definition of the model; countless variables are at play here which can alter and nullify in some cases the effects of the spiraling. This essay will aim to explore protean examples which leave holes in the Noelle-Neumann dated model.

The acceleration of technology in the last few decades has changed the world as we know it. The developments of online interaction have altered human social behavior in more ways than we could imagine. The online age we find ourselves in now leaves much of the Spiral of silence model to be questioned. The model is becoming something obsolete (Matthes et al., 2018). Noelle Neumann based her theory for face to face interactions between individuals. The introduction of an online environment means much more of this spiraling effect must be studied on this platform. In an online environment, a clear majority opinion is harder to identify compared to an offline environment. Therefore, a minority opinion may be voiced without fear of isolation. This fear of isolation becomes superannuated even further due to anonymity as an option in an online environment. Online apps like Facebook and Twitter have a multi-choice privacy status built into their app, to allow users to choose exactly who they want to share with and how they want to share their opinion and information, unfortunately, this isn’t always the case as this essay will examine later. Some apps are built purposely for the power of anonymity. Reddit is a very popular news aggregation and discussion website. People can create profiles and usernames that do not give away any part of their real identity and can post freely their opinions and partake in other people’s online discussions also. According to 2020 Reddit statistics, there are 430 million active monthly users. A recent Reddit post found on the front page titled “This new gay teen subculture is really annoying”, was posted by a user named Kayasphotgraphs. It was posted in the unpopular opinion subreddit. This instigated a lengthy debate between multiple users. The anonymity was key here as users voiced their true opinions independent of the opinion climate. Within Reddit, there are multiple opinion climates and multiple topics of discussion it is impossible to know what the dominant opinion is in general. There are fewer social cues in an online world which empowers less intimidation (Matthes et al, 2018).

A new mode of interaction like the example above enables people to not be so aware of the opinion climate around them. A key assumption of the theory is that the silencing effect can only occur when the topic of discussion contains a moral premise. However, evidently, online discussions involving anonymity like the one above containing a clear moral issue accelerate conversation among users, hence why it made it to the front page of the forum. This completely contradicts this assumption. The model is under doubt as our lives transition from an offline world to an online world of social interaction.

Moreover, interestingly in some cases, a quasi-statistical analysis, a key assumption of the Spiral of Silence theory, which subjects use to gauge the media environment is still relevant in today’s world, in fact perhaps more than ever. Individuals still observe perceptions of their climate rather than the real climate of opinion, the online discussions mentioned are a prime example. These perceptions are extremely valuable in terms of how we view our perception of ourselves, our behaviors, and our judgments, even in the political realm alone, perceptions can hugely alter poll results from the poll predictions. However, in an online arena, how unbiased is the environment of information the individual is receiving? If you have access to the internet you can literally search for anything, and find any answer to any question that is on your mind. We have an abundance of information at our fingertips but that does not mean we use it all to our advantage. Eli Pariser (2011) talks about this idea of a “Filter Bubble”. When we read a piece of news on the internet, the search engine algorithm personalizes our search to suggest more sites like it that agree with our opinion. We are bombarded with information, but it is carefully selected as information we can conform to. We arrive at the point of the bubble; we receive information that only reinforces our beliefs due to the personalization of our online world. This concept can result in political polarization. Political polarization is more prevalent than ever before, enabled by this online world. This causes audience members to receive a distorted view of public opinion. (De Wit et al, 2019) explain that in the last twenty years the position of either liberal or democrat in America, instead of any in-between position, has risen to over 20 percent. A modern example is politicians using Twitter for political reach, tweets often consisting of emotive language rather than formal tones. Donald Trump has dominated the political sphere on Twitter with his account. “The Lamestream Media wants us to fail. That will NEVER happen!” (Trump, 2020). This is an emotive response rather than a piece of information containing undeniable facts. “A shift towards more polarizing and laden content” (De Wit et al, 2019). These ideological outlets lead to fragmentation in society. A silencing factor is much less likely in these online battlegrounds for debate due to selective exposure as people are more confident in their views due to what they have read. However, recently Twitter has banned political advertising, meaning political reach must be earned and not bought. This would result in a greater balance of opinions being shared. The spiral of silence theory could become more visible online because of choices made like this of Twitter. A clearer majority group may appear on social media sights like this with the decline in polarization, however, whether a silencing effect will occur is unclear. The relevance and power of Noelle Neumann’s theory are still under question as behaviours online continue to change, particularly in the political sphere.

Considering selective exposure, the fear of overexposure is more of a lingering issue rather than the original model’s theory of the fear of isolation of individuals in society. The internet and particularly, websites like Reddit and Facebook allow for self-expression to take place. People can create personal profiles, describe themselves, and their lifestyle, and share information. They can share as much or as little as they want to, which controls the level of anonymity. In terms of discussing something they are interested in or a hot topic, an individual can post, it for just them or for everyone to see. However, it is harder to keep a life private when you create a profile online and begin to achieve social capital in this environment. Keeping your individual information visible to an acute amount can soon become difficult, Fox and Warber (2014). People within your online environment have the ability to share, comment, dislike your posts and form their own individual opinions towards them or they could simply not say anything but still promote and expose your post to a wider audience via sharing. This creates multiple opinion climates and a “Click Speech” style, where people like and share without producing their own message, Matthes et al (2018). People can join a Facebook page with just one click or support a fundraiser with one click, this action would then appear on friends’ pages to be engaged with in whatever way they please. Sharing someone’s post can be done without any self-production, Lim (2015). It creates a problem of exposure; one cannot simply isolate a certain topic to a certain social group without it being dispersed across multiple networks and outside groups. A simple example of this, creating a private page for a birthday on Facebook. A certain number of individuals within your network can see this page as they have been added. However, there is an issue with plus-ones, suddenly an outside network is aware of an event or topic. A private topic can become a public one which can lead to overexposure on a network, a fear that has perhaps become dominant. A key assumption of the model is under question here as isolation may not be a governing concern anymore in the online world, we now live in.

As mentioned previously, conforming to the majority is in decline among individuals. There is less fear online, opinionated posts are open to a global audience to read and dissect. The originally coined term for non-conformists in society was the ‘hard cores’ or the ‘Avantgardes’ (Noelle Neumann, 1974). This would have been the small group of individuals that were not afraid to speak out against the majority and were not lacking any self-esteem. The minority and the silencing of them defined by Noelle Neumann is perhaps evaporating. This surge of online interaction has allowed a voice from every side to be heard. The power of social media sites and news outlets online can bring non-conformists to a global spotlight. Politicians and people in powerful positions are using this online universe to reject conformity if that is what they believe in. Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo has rejected Trump’s statement to initiate a lockdown in New York state. The coronavirus has turned into a global pandemic in recent months and has brought the entire world to a standstill. Trump should not have the authority to initiate a lockdown, it should be illegal. This is not Wuhan: Andrew Cuomo as cited in Kimbell (2020). An example of non-conformity to a majority at an international level. The majority here is the entire rest of the world. The power of the online sphere to grant individual attention at an international scale like this, encourages powerful people to have controversial or minority opinions and express them in order to make political gain. Over time there is increasing conformity to group norms, Newcomb (1948) cited in Scheufele and Moy (2018). These types of opinions and expressions spread across the world media eventually become rationalized and somewhat understood, even when they seem outrageous at the time of reporting. The spiral effect could be reversed in this way. Rather than conforming to the majority, a strong minority could grow from a global story like the one above. Moreover, this majority is becoming more and more unclear as online media begins to take control. Individuals are subject to a ruling “public” opinion, what this “public” represents and is composed of is uncertain (Scheufele and Moy, 2000). The conformity aspect of the model is ever-changing, and this theory’s contemporary relevance is uncertain in a modern, predominantly online platform.

A cultural factor must be examined however when it comes to conformity issues and the spiral of silence model. Outspokenness and personality characteristics like this, which affect the majority views, vary across different cultural backgrounds. Donsbach and Stevenson (1984) cited in Scheufele and Moy (2000) highlight continued problems in research in examining the variables at play for adapting a public situation to multiple cultural and social conditions in a society. Cultures can vary in needs and wants, a collectivistic culture like China displays discretion in expressing individual opinions, what they say, and how they act is incredibly important to the environment they are in. Some cultures are more individualistic, for example, in the USA, there is a prioritization of a person’s individual needs and wants over anything else. The image of the self in a private and public setting is of utmost importance. With these cultural differences come a range of conflict styles as mentioned by Rahim (1983) as cited in Scheufele and Moy (2000), an individualistic culture would promote dominating and integrating styles, being of high concern for the self and low concern for others. Donald Trump is an exceptional example of this individualistic culture in the USA today. Trump continues to emphasize the importance of making America great again, satisfying individual American needs, and wanting each American to be an example of the best that humanity can offer. Following this, cultural factors have changed since the introduction of the Internet. The power of anonymity as mentioned before has brought along with it a blurred sense of what culture is online. Is online culture, its own culture, separate from pre-existing cultures in an offline world? The styles of conflict for an offline situation don’t apply here. Online culture has its own set of rules and social cues that have evolved since its introduction, these arguments against the original Spiral of Silence model.

It is evident that there are multiple variables at play that dispute and wrangle with the original assumptions of Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s ‘Spiral of Silence theory. Its contemporary relevance is fading. In an era of accelerated technological development, an online environment continues to surprise with its new abilities in terms of advancing social interaction between individuals. Basic assumptions of the model involving face-to-face settings are being replaced, re-shaped, and reconstructed to concur with an ever-evolving virtual society.

References

1. De-Wit, L et al. (2019) Are social media driving political polarization? Available at: https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/is_social_media_driving_political_polarization Accessed: March 30th, 2020.
2. Fox, J & Warber, K (2014) Queer Identity Management and political self-expression on social networking sites: A co-cultural approach to the spiral of silence. Journal of communication. Vol 65, p79-100. DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12137
3. Gearhart, S and Zhang, W (2018) Same Spiral, Different Day? Testing the spiral of silence across issue types. Communication research. Vol 45(1), p34-54. DOI: 10.1177
4. Kimball, S (2020) New York Gov. Cuomo says Trump has no authority to impose quarantine: ‘It would be illegal’. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/28/ny-gov-cuomo-says-trump-has-no-authority-to-impose-quarantine.html Accessed: March 31st, 2020.
5. Lim, M (2015) Many Clicks but Little Sticks: Social Media Activism in Indonesia: Social Media Activism in Indonesia. In: Nishant Shah, Puthiya Purayil Sneha, Sumandro Chattopadhyay (Hg.): Digital Activism in Asia Reader. Lüneburg: meson press 2015, S. 127– 154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/1318.
6. Matthes, J et al. (2018) The spiral of silence revisited: A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceptions of opinion support and political opinion expression. Communication Research. Vol 45(1), p3-33. DOI: 10.1177/0093650217745429
7. Scheufele, D & Moy, P (2000) Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: A conceptual review and empirical outlook. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Vol 12(1) p2-28. DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/12.1.3
8. This new “gay teen” subculture is really annoying (2020) Available at: https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/frnlv4/this_new_gay_teen_subculture_is_really_annoying/ Accessed: March 31st, 2020.
9. Tsfati, Y et al. (2014) Exposure to ideological news and perceived opinion climate: Testing the media effects component of the spiral of silence in a fragmented media landscape. The International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol 19(1) p3-23. DOI:10.1177
10. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump (2020) Accessed: March 30th, 2020.

Given the volatile political climate of the west as well as the accessibility of the internet, social media, as well as media in general, has become a battleground between political parties that in turn has caused a large divide, however back in the days before the internet, many people were not as vocal about their political views, especially if it was a view held by a minority of the population, a good example being right-wing Trump Supporters in the US being vocal about their vote despite the left demonizing the President and outwardly stating their hatred towards him. In this piece, I will try to find out whether the internet and its media have made the Spiral of Silence theory obsolete whilst also trying to understand why nothing upon the internet is under the guise of free speech as well as if the inherent freedom is the causation of such a result in political opinion.

The Spiral of silence theory

Introduced in 1974 Noelle-Neumann, a political scientist, developed a model of public opinion called the Spiral of Silence that was based on the study of human communication and public opinion. The theory surmised that people’s willingness to express their opinions on controversial public issues is influenced by the unconscious perceptions of opinions deemed popular and unpopular. In turn, the unpopular opinion in silence whilst the popular is further encouraged.{1} The spiral of silence theory has been criticized however for being hyperbolic about the strength fear and intimidation has over an individual in various social settings, as well as the theory is based upon small-group conformity research to provide an explanation of the dynamics of opinion expression.

Media and its relationship to politics

Due to the broad reach of mass media as well as the recent creation of the internet which has led to the landscape of communication becoming denser, more complex as well as becoming much more participatory, the spiral of silence came into fruition more so than it would have before the time of mass digital media. This is due to the fact that the majority’s opinion would be more widespread than just a city or state but on the scale of an opinion being popular across the country. As seen in a case study regarding the theory and its effects on the perception of smoking conducted by Shanahan, Scheufele, Yang, and Hizi{2}. The case study concluded that mass media and its exposure is related to perceptions and public support of smoking, albeit indirectly. The case study also discusses the implication of the spiral of silence theory in the study’s result, however, due to lack of access I was unable to read the entire book to gain insight into the findings as well as possible theories that could, in fact, be the leading cause of the results as opposed to the cause being the Spiral of silence theory in action, thus proving my hypothesis albeit weakly.

This case study does highlight, however, the influence and power the media has over people’s perceptions as well as how it possibly utilizes the spiral of silence to further its agenda or opinion. This point is furthered in a journal article written by C. Shirky about the “Political Power of Social Media”{3} which focuses on social media’s potential to support civil societies and public spheres as well as explain the ideology that the government should aim to maintain internet freedom as opposed to using it to achieve policy aims concerning other countries.

The article states that social media allows for greater access to information enabling people with more opportunities to engage in public speaking as well as allowing them to undertake collective action. This strategy is known as The Philippine strategy, which has been adopted many times since the initial strategy was used during the protests in Manila.

The strategy succeeded in 2004 in Spain where Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar was ousted for inaccurately blaming the Madrid bombings on Basque separatists. The demonstration was arranged via social media and text messages and resulted in the event becoming the first to ever remove a national leader from power using social media. This event solidifies the relationship between social media and politics whilst also showing the power Media has over it. The journal notes multiple successful and unsuccessful protests coordinated via social media as well as the effects social media has on the US and its interests regarding politics and orders.

Now, this journal does not note the spiral of silence theory in the slightest meaning it does not disprove or prove my hypothesis however it does provide information on the relationship between the two. Another notation on media’s relationship to politics is when the Supreme Court prevented California from regulating the sales of violent video games calling the order ‘unconstitutional’, Justice Scalia stated that “Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.”{4} The article written by the verge analyzes how the bill could have won if the bill regulated games with sexual content instead of violence, however, that information and analysis provides no information to assist in showing the relationship media has with politics as opposed to simply showing the nuances of the court hearing and is thus obsolete to my research.

Online opinion and discussion

By understanding the relationship that media has with the spiral of silence I can further amplify my understanding of whether my hypothesis is true or false, one of the theories that prove my hypothesis is the concept of ease of access to information via social media as stated by Shirky{3} resulting in the majority’s opinion being more vocally challenged as more people have access to the same information. In a research note by Micheal McDevitt, Spiro Kiousis, and Karin Wahl-Jorgensen discussing opinion in computer-mediated discussion{5}, the portrayal of muted citizens that cower under the public eye are less apparent and more difficult to reconcile with empirical data when looking at computer-mediated contexts such as a newsgroup and chatroom. Speculations have arisen, prompted by the innovation in interactive media, regarding the access to political information, the production of social capital as written by Putnam in a study conducted in 2000{6} as well as political efficacy. However, the research note brings forth the fact that the implications for opinion expression are yet to be explored as a possible function of the spiral of silence theory. Much can be addressed from this question, however, including one that relates to democracy; does the anonymity that comes from the use of social media forums allow citizens to express the views of the minority due to the liberation from social accountability? The research note suggests that computer-mediated discussion promotes the concept of mediated expression of opinion and states that it has narrowed its views on the implication of the spiral of silence dynamic as opposed to the broad gradual change of discussion in interpersonal relations.

The note also provides 3 important assumptions that I have based my research upon in the context where all these conditions exist in terms of computer-mediated discussion:

• Individuals must be motivated to actively survey the climate of opinion (, Noelle-Neumann, ).
• Individuals must be able to accurately survey the climate of opinion (Shamir, Price & Allen, ).
• Individuals must believe consciously or subconsciously that the majority has the power to impose negative sanctions on those with dissenting views (Scheufele et al., Oshagan, ).

Neumann stated that the essential meaning of public opinion is based on “the interaction between the inclinations, abilities, and convictions of the individual and the agreement of the many, to which the individual has to subordinate himself if he does not want to place himself in isolation outside society”.

This means that fear of isolation is thought to drive individuals to become reluctant and sensitive to the changes in the distribution of opinions differing or similar to their own. The notion of this fear, however, has been criticized for being hyperbolic but also for not acknowledging the competing motivations behind expressing an opinion.

When talking in contrast to the computer-mediated discussion, however, factors such as increased anonymity and physical distance cause a breakdown in etiquette, research on this phenomenon, now known by the term ‘flaming’, comes from the discussion having low involvement obligation, the factor that causes sensitivity on expressing opinions in an interpersonal mediated discussion.

Another reason for this breakdown in etiquette is the removal of the fear of social sanctions imposed by the majority. This is because, for social sanctions such as embarrassment in a social setting, the physical presence of others is required. Normative influence is also affected by non-verbal cues such as body language or eye contact. Because computer-mediated discussion alludes to many of these cues, users are less inclined to hold back opinions. In fact, computer mediation appears to comprise some of the conditions of anonymity with users becoming more emotional or impulsive in computer-mediated areas, this observation leads to another theory known as The online disinhibition effect{7} and is possibly a reason for expressing minority opinions.

This research has supported my hypothesis of the spiral of silence theory is broken down by online media and social media in general, research has shown the phenomenon known as flaming and provided an explanation as to possible reasons for the phenomenon existing as well as providing another theory to branch off that may explain the reason for users being more impulsive in the computer-mediated discussion by expressing a minority opinion. However, they have not researched the political climate in terms of social media meaning that I have not gained insight into a prime candidate for evidence regarding the spiral of silence dynamic in a more extreme and volatile sense. A member of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, Kimberly Strassel wrote a book on “how the left is silencing free speech”{8}, called the Intimidation Game.

The intimidation game

Within the book, Strassel deconstructs modern-day left-wing politics in the US whilst also exposing a dark motive some possess, apparently including runner for presidency Hillary Clinton, in which the government amends the first amendment in order to put the federal government in charge of free speech. Many reviews have commended the book for its chilling but truthful depiction of such a goal whilst also keeping itself from demonizing an entire political ideology through biased representation or hyperbolic lexical choice.

Strassel’s book is similar to the works of Kirsten Powers in her book “The silencing”. Despite their similarities, there are stark contrasts between the two books even though they both talk about the first amendment. Powers describes how Americans are losing their first amendment rights whilst, Strassel describes how Freedom of speech has already been lost and is now in fact bought. The book goes into the multitude of ways that the far left had used to try and silence free speech using both federal agencies such as the IRS, FBI, DOJ, FEC, and in some cases the FDA as well as making such data available to the general public in order to intimidate members with opposing views into silence. Strassel also notes how Liberal state departments have refused to prosecute crimes committed by people with liberal beliefs whilst their courts misinterpret or fail to uphold the law with parties such as the TEA party being required to wait 5 years to wait for permission to speak.

The Intimidation game also references a method of attack through campaign finance laws by taking the source of money used by conservative organizations, which was then circumvented by the Supreme Court’s 2010 “Citizens United” ruling which prevented such methods of attack{9}. Though the content of these court orders is irrelevant to my own hypothesis they do help to show how the silencing of political opinion is circumvented through law.