What is "free speech"? The dictionary defines it as "the freedom of speech." Thanks, dictionary. That's not helpful. So we dig further. "Freedom of speech" is defined as "the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc." Okay, that's better. But ... what does it mean?
In the First Amendment we have several freedoms "guaranteed." Well, to be more careful, we have several restrictions on Congress. They can't establish a religion. They can't prohibit anyone from the free exercise of their religion. They can't "abridge" our freedom of speech or the press. They can't remove the right of the people to peaceably assemble. They can't prevent the people from petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Whew! That's actually quite a few. But I'm looking at this moment at that one in the middle. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..." Okay, so what is "abridging"? It means to shorten, to reduce or lessen, to deprive or cut off. Right. Okay. But ... don't we already do that? I mean, in that definition above we already include "subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc." So already free speech is subject to other laws -- abridged.
It only gets foggier from here. The courts have already indicated that freedom of speech includes the right not to speak, the right to wear black armbands, the right to use offensive words, the right to contribute money, the right to advertise, and the right to engage in symbolic speech (like burning the flag). Freedom of speech, then, does not simply mean the freedom to say what you want. It exceeds "speech." Perhaps "freedom of expression" would be better. On the other hand, they've also said our freedom of speech does not include inciting actions that would harm others, distributing obscene materials, burning draft cards, or advocating illegal drug use. One interesting thing not allowed by the court was, in 1988, a case that denied students the right to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. That sounds like an abridging of both the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. Strange. But already a done deal. So clearly "speech" is more than speech and "freedom" is less than freedom. The question, then, becomes "What is the freedom and what is the speech?"
Coupled to that, it should be noted that the First Amendment restricts Congress from making a law here. The protected and banned components of "free speech" I detailed in the previous paragraph were not a product of Congress, so they didn't violate the First Amendment. Nor does the First Amendment have anything to say about private entities who wish to "violate the First Amendment," so to speak. That is, if a Leftist university refuses to allow a rightwing speaker from speaking there, it can't be said they violated the First Amendment because the amendment simply addresses what Congress can (or, more accurately, can't) do. We get this. The government can't prevent free speech (with exceptions, of course), but a blogger doesn't have to allow it on their blog. And we routinely don't, whether we're right or left or in the middle.
I'm still here wondering, just what is free speech? I have no clear understanding of how free it is. I have no clear understanding of how restricted it is -- how free it is not. I have no clear understanding of what constitutes "speech." I've heard people say, "You're allowed to express yourself freely in this country, but that doesn't mean you can do so without consequences." I can tell you without equivocation that is not "free speech." If the freedom of speech is the freedom to express opinions without "cost" ("free"), then consequences for speech is not "freedom."
I would argue, then, that this nation is not a nation of free speech. We try to say we are. We pride ourselves on it. It's not true. Free speech is limited at the outset by law, preventing harm, distribution of obscene material, etc. Beyond that, universities and other organizations routinely prevent opposing views from being allowed a platform to speak. Churches certainly don't include an open forum for anti-church speech. Private entities like blogs or other such things aren't required to allow free speech. It turns out, in fact, that apparently the only entity that must allow free speech is the government, and even they don't have to allow all of it. So the next time you want to complain that your right to free speech is being infringed, think again. It is only a vague, undefined, mostly undefended right. Certainly not one endowed by the Creator (Prov 12:22; Matt 12:36).
14 comments:
what ever the case may be.. there is no freedom of speech with out consequences.
It is true that the constitution sets limits on what congress may or may not do. but speech as with all modes of communication, will effect the conscience and sensitivities of others. this is where the rubber meets the road. even the authors of the constitution, were in direct rebellion against the crown, to dare to express such freedoms. for the most part, the government is just a bystander watching everything play out. it is the people that decide what they will tolerate. example: a video was released this week of children singing about cutting off the heads of infidels and conquring the world for Islam. they were being taught that it is ok, to kill for the sake of Allah.
These children are american citizens... in Philadelphia . where the constitution was written. America is becoming an Oroboris, we are consuming ourselves by our own freedoms...
Regardless of what the government says -- or the Constitution or the society -- there is indeed no such thing as speech without consequences. Everything we do has consequences.
("Ouroboros" -- nice word.)
Feodor, a couple of points.
1. This blog is moderated. That means 1) no comments are posted automatically; they are checked first. (My mother reads this blog. I am opposed to offending people.) And 2) since it is moderated, commenters have to wait until I get a chance to moderate. Before I could get around to moderating your comment (#1) you had sent 4 more. A little patience would be nice. But I'm told I shouldn't expect that out of you? Why don't you make my advisers into liars and show a little restraint?
2. I haven't blocked or banned you. You assume I have because of #1 above, but I'm just not quick enough for you. On the other hand, not a single one of your 5 comments had the slightest connection to the topic of this entry. You're debating (with Craig) something I wrote on Craig's blog to Craig and aiming it at me, using the most convenient place to fire your shots without regard to topic. Since that's not helpful to anyone, why don't you either do your debate on Craig's blog or wait until I put up something that relates to your rant? I'm always up for a decent discussion. I just need it to be on topic.
3. The single rule here is above. "Friendly discussion." If you can't be friendly in a dialog, you're comment won't likely make it through moderation. I'm sure you are capable of a friendly discussion. When the opportunity arises, I'll look forward to it. Debating abortion on a post about free speech (or, rather, the lack thereof) just is not that opportunity.
I paid so little attention to it that I don't even know what baseball franchise it was, but it seems they banned someone who was in the ballpark for a gesture (?) that was said to represent white nationalism. Since free speech protection limits what *government* can do, this wasn't a constitutional issue. But I immediately thought: What if it was a brown person wearing a shirt with "Viva la raza" on it, or a black person wearing a Malcolm X cap? Does anybody seriously think the result of those things would be a ban? The double standards on race have gotten laughable in this century.
For the burden you bore yesterday, let me make amends by the truest sign of respect I recognize: honest engagement with another's thoughts.
Free speech did not rise from the ground; it derived in and carrels historical conditions. For us, free speech is mainly a principle of the Enlightenment. Twin mothers of English law and French Revolution saw the importance of protected free speech as healthy practice in which a society can debate and deliberate in the public square. This context implies that free speech is a product of the new values of the individual in distinction from traditional institutions and a monopoly of power invested in traditional institutions. The new value of the individual relates to the capacities for the individual, and by extension communities of natural society, to reason, to practice argumentation via the gathering of facts, the application of logic, and the filter of moral reflection (though, again, the moral system needs to be rationally based via facts, logic, and reflection - not, specifically, any claimed revelation of truth that will not submit to reason).
So, our Free Speech was never without responsibilities: the responsibility to apply reasoned, facts based, reflective address on whatever issue is of concern. The issue of restricting harmful speech, I think, comes from John Stuart Mill.
Enlightenment. English law. French Revolution. John Stuart Mill. Major sources contributing to what I and you, but you perhaps with undue passion, would claim to be the exceptionalism of Western Civilization.
What we have these days - frankly always around but lately very anxious driven intrusion into the politics of the public square - are people like you who would try to shoe horn in dearly held, unassailable by reason, revealed truths that no one can be under any obligation to believe. Unless they choose to. This is the freedom and rights of individuals.
What Universities and Colleges (thoroughly charged with protecting and presenting Enlightenment reason and Scientific method as the only responsible intellectual commitments) are fighting are people who want to speak freely outside of the tests and rigors and license of heterogeneous communal debate. In fact, the rightward speakers being denied are arguing AGAINST the very elements of the Enlightenment, AGAINST the values of presenting fact based, logic proceeding, morally framed reasoned arguments offered to a heterogeneous community and are instead lodging bombs of commitments to revealed truths that deny humanistically reasoned judgments.
It is your right to have faith commitments. But in western civil society, free speech in the public square and at places of Enlightenment platformed learning is inherently embedded - for better or worse - in what has made us great: critical reason and do no harm.
There ya go, Feo. An on-topic comment. Now, let's see what we have ...
It sounds like you are saying that "free speech" as it is intended is only free if it meets certain criteria -- "reasoned, facts based, reflective address on whatever issue is of concern." And my "free speech" is, by definition, excluded because (in your view) it is not what you would admit as meeting your criteria. Is that your position? Is it your position that the framers of the Bill of Rights intended to limit the free speech of religious people?
(I should point out that 1) you are agreeing -- as I think you know you are and actually affirm -- my premise that actual "free speech" -- unlimited speech without consequences -- doesn't exist, and 2) you have an extreme distaste (perhaps that's too light a word) for people of faith. That extreme "distaste," unchecked, will make friendly discussions difficult for you.)
Freedom without responsibilities does not exist in human society. All freedoms come with responsibility. This is just a mature position in healthy societies. And this is not just for the individual. Freedom and responsibility are tandems that address human fullness as we live individually in moral relationship with all others - and all others of creation, as well.
I did not say your Free Speech is excluded. I did point out that one target of your post (perhaps the motivation), banning "rightward speakers" makes sense to me if they are ignoring and refusing to present their case on a rationally argued basis platformed on what has made Western Civilization so often a good example of civil society since the Enlightenment became diffusely embedded in our laws and public practice.
And if you are arguing that they should be included based on free speech grounds, then you fail to understand the concept of fee speech as we have it codified in our laws. If you are arguing that they are a truth to tell, a truth that is based only on revealed mystery that takes faith to find it true, then your are arguing outside of the entire context of the concept of free speech.
In the marketplace of ideas, we have a victory of the push back of reason to celebrate: "A national Muslim group says it will conduct an investigation into an event at a Philadelphia Islamic center last month during which a group of youngsters sang songs it said were not “properly vetted,” calling that “an unintended mistake and an oversight. . . “While we celebrate the coming together of different cultures and languages, not all songs were properly vetted,” the Muslim American Society, based in Washington, said in a statement issued Friday. “This was an unintended mistake and an oversight in which the center and the students are remorseful. MAS will conduct an internal investigation to ensure this does not occur again.”
BTW, I am a person of faith. And I express my faith strongly and with passion.
I admit to having a distaste towards those who rigidly hold convictions based on dead dogma. It doesn't sell the right thing to the right people and it sells the wrong thing to the wrong people.
My distaste, therefore, is evidence based.
I'm still confused here, Feodor. You indicated that we have a problem with "free speech" these days because of "people like you who would try to shoe horn in dearly held, unassailable by reason, revealed truths that no one can be under any obligation to believe." Sounds like you're preference would be to eliminate me (whom you do not know) from the public square. Seems as if you believe (without evidence) that I do not offer reason, logic, or evidence for what I hold to be true. Only ... your term ... "dead dogma."
Since you dismiss my views out of hand as "dead dogma" and lacking in reason, logic, evidence, or truth, what would you hope to obtain by discussing this stuff with me? More to the point, why should I discuss it with you? If my best loved sources are things like the plain reading of Scripture, the evidence of Church history, and basic logic and you do not believe that these have any value in a reasoned, logical, evidence-based discussion, what motivation would I have in pursuing a conversation with you? I ask this without a sense of offense. I simply wonder what you think.
Lord, no, I wouldn't want you dismissed from the public square. I'm here precisely because you are allowing a little moment of public square debate. My request is that you yourself distinguish how a theistically framed approach to social concerns can be either platformed by critical reason arguments or not. If they are, they have a right to be heard in the public square. If not, they do not.
I will admit that my refusal to allow just anyone to stand up and speak freely (excluding those considered to be speaking sedition or encouraging imminent violence, etc) is that I have come to see hate speech as harm, not just hateful action. Hate speech is not based in Enlightenment reason like the concept of Free Speech is. Neither, by the way, are climate change deniers.
And I admit that few University presidents or faculty over 40 have changed in this way. They would have a completely open forum. Younger people will not. And I have been convinced by reasoning that certain folks are seeking to tear at the fabric of rational debate in order to achieve religious fundamentalist power over reasonable deliberation and a protection of human rights.
Without any personal content -- not talking about me or anyone else in particular -- it would appear that you do believe that some should not be allowed to stand up and speak freely, then. So the determination of who should and shouldn't will be based on your definition of "hate speech" and "harm" (which, apparently, includes anyone you deem a climate change denier). At least I can see where your lines are. I suppose my primary disagreement will come when you define "hate speech" and "harm" differently than I do, eh?
I recognize that I am moving toward more constraints on free speech than is custom in US law and history. But the times, where some claim that black folks were better off in slavery; that the white race and culture are superior; that brown people bear collective guilt despite that the US stand for individual rights; that our world isn't in environmental crisis; that allying with a foreign power to influence elections isn't treason... all warrant closer examination to what Free Speech really is an Enlightenment derived concept.
Free Speech warrants a closer examination because people with non-rational agendas, fundamentalist motives to re-entrench cultic revealed truths as law for everyone (like Sharia) are weaponizing the liberty of Free Speech to actually destroy it.
Anonymous, I heard about the investigation, but apparently they banned him. We will forever be wondering who gets to define "offensive."
That hand gesture was new to me, so I looked it up. According to the thing I read, it was originally intended as a joke. Someone made an "okay" sign and then started a joke meme that this was a white nationalist sign. It started an social media outrage. That was all well and good ... until actual white nationalists started using the sign just as the hoax said they already had, and it actually became the thing that the joke was joking about. We live in a strange world.
Feodor, I get that you're in a dispute with Craig on his blog and he won't let you comment. I get that this is frustrating to you. However, my blog is not the place that you get to use randomly to comment to Craig, especially when your comments have nothing to do with, in this case, free speech, or whatever the blog topic is you're commenting on when you're trying to comment to Craig. You'll have to work out your difficulties with him, not here.
Post a Comment