offensive speech and behavior. arguments for restrictions speech is other-regarding it can harm...
TRANSCRIPT
Harmful speech
Speech can lower overall happiness and so deserve to be prohibited:
Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theaterSlander and libelHarassmentIntentional infliction of emotional distressThreats of violenceTreasonIncitements to riot or engage in terror
Harm vs. Offense
How does offense differ from harm?
Offensive speech and behavior does not cause
physical harm
economic harm
But it may cause emotional upset and disturbance
Rights
Do people have a right not to be harmed?You have a right not to be murdered, kidnapped, robbed, etc.But you might also be harmed if someone fires you, or dumps you, or opens a competing businessYou have a right not to be harmed unjustly
Rights
Do people have a right not to be offended?At best, you have a right not to be offended unjustlyBut is there any such right?
Offensive behaviors
There are offensive behaviors we ban without controversy:
Public nudity
Public sexual acts
Public displays of dead bodies
Loudspeakers in residential neighborhoods
Offensive behaviors
There are offensive behaviors we tolerate without controversy:
Sticking out one’s tongue
Making faces
Hissing, booing
Toilet humor
What’s the difference?
Offensive behaviors
Flag burning
Cross burning
Obscene gestures
Inappropriate laughter (University of Connecticut speech code)
Looks, leers, stares
Plato’s Argument
Speech and behavior affect character
Society is justified in prohibiting what will produce vice and encouraging what will produce virtue
Some speech and behavior encourages vice
So, we’re justified in prohibiting it
Social Cohesion Argument
Restricting speech brings about greater social cohesion
Protects individuals
Protects marginalized groups
Increases mutual respect
Allows for individual differences
Lets people work together more effectively
Fundamental beliefs argument
Every community is based on certain fundamental beliefs and values
Speech can undermine those beliefs and values
Communities are justified in prohibiting things that would undermine them
So, every institution is justified in prohibiting some speech
History and Tradition
History and tradition are guides to what is truly fundamental
The history of the flag, for example, might show it to be a fundamental symbol of our nation
So, we’re justified in restricting behavior to protect it
Subversion
Similarly, we might restrict speech that aims to subvert our nation or society
So, we might restrict speech advocating revolution, violence, terrorism, etc.
We might also restrict intolerant speech
We don’t have to tolerate intolerance
Speech and action
How does speech differ from other other-regarding actions?
If it doesn’t, freedom of speech = freedom of action in general
But obviously we can restrict freedom of action to protect others
Speech and action
To protect them from unjust harm, yes.
But to protect them from offense?
We’re back where we started
Vagueness
Much speech and behavior is symbolic
It can be hard to distinguish statements or actions from threats
History shows that certain kinds of statements or actions (e.g., cross burning) have links to violence
Truth
The opinion may be true.
Mencken: "All the durable truths that have come into the world within historic times have been opposed as bitterly as if they were so many waves of smallpox."
The value of truth
Truth is valuable
For what it can do for us instrumentally
For its own sake
For us to be free (cf. Mill's third condition on true agency-- to be free, one must be informed)
Partial Truth
A false opinion may contain part of the truth.
Mill: "the prevailing or general opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth"
The value of falsehood
Even totally false speech and opinions reinforce truth
People who hold a truth without being able to say why hold it dogmatically
Without challengers, its vitality is likely to be lost (Mill)
Its meaning, in time, is likely to be lost (Milton, Mill)
Virtue Argument
Virtue forged by trial: without temptation, virtue is undeveloped or insecure.
”Look how much we thus expel of sin, so much we expel of virtue: for the matter of them is the same; remove that, and ye remove them both alike." (Milton)
We develop character by forming opinions and being able to defend them
Trust Argument
Who has such a superior intellectual or moral outlook to be trustworthy as a censor?
Why would such a person want to be one? (Milton)
Practicality Argument
The availability of media makes censorship impractical (Milton)--
except (even?) as carried out by a totalitarian (and ruthless) State
Neutrality Argument
Suppressing ideas is risky-- "a 'mistake' becomes whatever it is that the authorities don't like to hear" (Rauch).
Authorities are rarely neutral
Against Censorship
Pain is required for knowledge
Rauch: "A no-offense society is a no-knowledge society.”
The cost of recognizing a right not to be offended, or even offended unjustly, is too high
Incentives Argument
Rewarding offense produces more offense
People have incentives to claim to be offended
Restrictions inevitably spread
Vagueness Argument
There are many degrees of offense
The lines between factual disagreements, annoyances, irritations, offenses, outrages, and harms are vague
Where does one draw the line?