FREEDOM OF SPEECH - Fear of public ridicule
| 2022-2023 |
- conclusion: can attempt to regulate speech, but we
INTRODUCTION: BOUNDARIES OF THE DEBATE cannot prevent it if a person is undeterred by the
- Every society places some limits on the exercise of threat of sanction
speech b/c speech always takes place within a context - Resolve: ignore the question of whether or not it is
of competing values legitimate to attach penalties to some forms of
- “free speech in short, is not an independent value but speech.
a political prize”
- Fish suggests, right to freedom of speech is JOHN STUART MILL’S HARM PRINCIPLE
not something we have, not something we If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity,
own, in the same way as we possess arms & there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and
legs discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine,
- Mills suggest, struggle always takes place between the however immoral it may be considered.
competing demands of authority and liberty - any doctrine should be allowed the light of day no
- All that makes existence valuable to anyone depends matter how immoral it may seem to everyone else
on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of
other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one
be imposed—by law in the first place, and by opinion person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no
on many things which are not fit subjects for the more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had
operation of law. (1978, 5) the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
- unlimited domain of free speech; cannot be defended - fullest liberty of expression is required to push our
- need to decide the value we place on speech in arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits
relation to other important ideals: privacy, security of social embarrassment
and democratic equality
- Speech is part of a package deal of social goods:
“speech, in short, is never a value in and of itself but is HARM PRINCIPLE: the only purpose for which power can be
always produced within the precincts of some rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community,
assumed conception of the good” against his will, is to prevent harm to others
SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT: consequence of limiting speech HARM: an action has to directly and in the first instance
is the inevitable slide into censorship and tyranny. invade the rights of a person
ARGUMENTS: assume that we can be on or off the slope -- no - limits on free speech will be very narrow because it is
such choice exists difficult to support the claim that most speech causes
- not allow any removal of government interventions harm to the rights of others.
because once we will be in anarchy, the state of - If we accept the argument based on the harm
nature, and a life that Hobbes described in Leviathan principle we need to ask “what types of speech, if any,
as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” cause harm?” Once we can answer this question, we
- Advocation of slippery-slope has to demonstrate how have found the appropriate limits to free expression
a restriction here and now will lead to some further
(unjustified) restriction in the future The example Mill uses is in reference to corn dealers: he
- The usual slippery-slope claim is not that the suggests that it is acceptable to claim that corn dealers starve
proposed restriction will lead to minor adjustments in the poor if such a view is expressed through the medium of
the future, but that a small change now will have the printed page.
drastic and tyrannical consequences.
Mill distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate harm,
- freedom of speech differs from some other types of
and it is only when speech causes a direct and clear violation
free action
of rights that it can be limited.
- punish people after they have said, written or
published their thoughts The fact that Mill does not count accusations of starving the
- threat of a sanction makes it more difficult and poor as causing illegitimate harm to the rights of corn dealers
potentially more costly to exercise our freedom suggests he wished to apply the harm principle sparingly.
SANCTION FORMS: - Other examples of the harm principle: libel laws,
blackmail, advertising blatant untruths about
(1) Legal punishment by the state
commercial products, advertising dangerous products
(2) threat of sanction comes from social disapprobation
| 2022-2023 |
- conclusion: can attempt to regulate speech, but we
INTRODUCTION: BOUNDARIES OF THE DEBATE cannot prevent it if a person is undeterred by the
- Every society places some limits on the exercise of threat of sanction
speech b/c speech always takes place within a context - Resolve: ignore the question of whether or not it is
of competing values legitimate to attach penalties to some forms of
- “free speech in short, is not an independent value but speech.
a political prize”
- Fish suggests, right to freedom of speech is JOHN STUART MILL’S HARM PRINCIPLE
not something we have, not something we If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity,
own, in the same way as we possess arms & there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and
legs discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine,
- Mills suggest, struggle always takes place between the however immoral it may be considered.
competing demands of authority and liberty - any doctrine should be allowed the light of day no
- All that makes existence valuable to anyone depends matter how immoral it may seem to everyone else
on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of
other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one
be imposed—by law in the first place, and by opinion person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no
on many things which are not fit subjects for the more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had
operation of law. (1978, 5) the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
- unlimited domain of free speech; cannot be defended - fullest liberty of expression is required to push our
- need to decide the value we place on speech in arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits
relation to other important ideals: privacy, security of social embarrassment
and democratic equality
- Speech is part of a package deal of social goods:
“speech, in short, is never a value in and of itself but is HARM PRINCIPLE: the only purpose for which power can be
always produced within the precincts of some rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community,
assumed conception of the good” against his will, is to prevent harm to others
SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT: consequence of limiting speech HARM: an action has to directly and in the first instance
is the inevitable slide into censorship and tyranny. invade the rights of a person
ARGUMENTS: assume that we can be on or off the slope -- no - limits on free speech will be very narrow because it is
such choice exists difficult to support the claim that most speech causes
- not allow any removal of government interventions harm to the rights of others.
because once we will be in anarchy, the state of - If we accept the argument based on the harm
nature, and a life that Hobbes described in Leviathan principle we need to ask “what types of speech, if any,
as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” cause harm?” Once we can answer this question, we
- Advocation of slippery-slope has to demonstrate how have found the appropriate limits to free expression
a restriction here and now will lead to some further
(unjustified) restriction in the future The example Mill uses is in reference to corn dealers: he
- The usual slippery-slope claim is not that the suggests that it is acceptable to claim that corn dealers starve
proposed restriction will lead to minor adjustments in the poor if such a view is expressed through the medium of
the future, but that a small change now will have the printed page.
drastic and tyrannical consequences.
Mill distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate harm,
- freedom of speech differs from some other types of
and it is only when speech causes a direct and clear violation
free action
of rights that it can be limited.
- punish people after they have said, written or
published their thoughts The fact that Mill does not count accusations of starving the
- threat of a sanction makes it more difficult and poor as causing illegitimate harm to the rights of corn dealers
potentially more costly to exercise our freedom suggests he wished to apply the harm principle sparingly.
SANCTION FORMS: - Other examples of the harm principle: libel laws,
blackmail, advertising blatant untruths about
(1) Legal punishment by the state
commercial products, advertising dangerous products
(2) threat of sanction comes from social disapprobation
