Freedom and the proper regulation of speech
Individual freedom -- control over one's own life, liberty and property -- is the very thing that constitutional laws guaranteeing freedom of speech are intended to defend. It is the only thing a law guaranteeing free speech logically can defend. That redundancy is why, in the final analysis of the concept “freedom of speech”, the words “of speech” are non-essential and, ultimately, dispensable.
Paul McKeever - September 26, 2008
Freedom of speech.
Ironically, it is a political subject about which most people talk without saying anything.
“Freedom of speech has limits”, some say, just before, reflexively, they trot out the inevitable “for example, you can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theatre.” I always imagine them silent, feeling legally bound not to tell anyone in the theatre that the snack bar is on fire.
Mostly, folks make such assertions baldly, having little logical argument to back up their conclusions. This allows them to sneak in an unprincipled regulation of “hate speech” here, and an unprincipled regulation against the importation of lesbian books there. Still, in implying that the government should regulate some speech, such people are closer to a correct and correctly-worded argument than those who assert that no speech should ever be regulated: that the government must be prohibited from regulating speech, full stop.
“Freedom of speech is absolute” these purported advocates of freedom say. Seeing themselves as brave, clear-thinking political philosophers who despise compromise and trace every argument to its ultimate logical conclusion, such people often proceed to explain that there should be no laws against defamation. Usually, their argument, boiled to its essential point is:
“Physical force should only ever be used in response to the initiation of coercive physical force. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you. Therefore, it is wrong for anyone, including government, to regulate speech.
Sure, if I defame you, you might lose customers. But you do not own your reputation. You don’t have a right to your reputation. Your reputation is just beliefs in other peoples’ heads, and you have no right to dictate what they think about you. The real problem -- and it is a widespread problem -- is that people fail to treat everyone’s claims as false-until-proven-true. Nobody should ever base their decision upon some claim that someone has made. Doing so is irrational."
Though well-intentioned in some cases, such people are defending not reason but anti-rationality. Wittingly or unwittingly, they are making arguments that implicitly oppose laws against some instances of murder, slavery, and theft. Intentionally or unintentionally, they are opposing freedom, not advocating it.
Page 1 of 4