WHAT SHOULDN’T WE SAY? THE LIMITS OF FREE SPEECH

6:00 p.m Welcome and Introduction Dr. Heidi Wayment, Chair of Psychological Sciences and Director of the Compassion Project 6:15 p.m. Community Discussion Dr. Jeff Downard, NAU Department of Philosophy 1. What limits, if any, should there be on free speech? 2. Why do we value free speech? And what competing values, if any, justify

limiting it? 3. What place, if any, should hate speech have in a democratic society? 4. How should our local community respond to speech we deem harmful or

offensive? What values support such responses? 7:20 p.m. Closing Questions and Recap of Discussion

AGENDA

Special thanks to our partners and venue hosts!

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

6 - 7:30 p.m.

Museum of Northern Arizona

Facilitated by: Dr. Jeff Downard, NAU Department of Philosophy

What limits, if any, should there be on free speech?

FREE SPEECH can be defined as unrestrained speech. Many cases raise

questions about the limits of free speech. Here are some to consider:

Case 1:

Yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater is illegal in the US. In the 1919 Supreme

Court decision Schenck v United States, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote,

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting

fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words

used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and

present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to

prevent .”

Case 2:

The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo publishes cartoons mocking religious

figures. The cartoons are offensive to many. Recently the magazine’s staff was

attacked by two brothers who were offended, Cherif and Said Kouachi. In response,

many people have shown support for the magazine with the phrase “Je suis

Charlie” (I am Charlie). However, others have criticized the magazine for going too

far. For example, one of the magazine’s founders recently accused its slain editor,

Stéphane Charbonnier, of “dragging the team” to their deaths by releasing

increasingly provocative cartoons.

Case 3:

In 2002 Joseph Fredrick of Alaska displayed a 14-foot banner reading “Bong Hits 4

Jesus” outside his high school. The banner was confiscated and Fredrick was

suspended for 10 days for promoting illegal drug use, a violation of school policy.

Fredrick later sued claiming his First Amendment rights had been infringed.

Translation for Charlie Hebdo cover from November 3, 2011:

“100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter!” 3

Why do we value free speech? And what competing values,

if any, justify limiting it?

In general, free speech is weighed against values concerning libel, slander,

pornography, safety, hate, and equality of expression (when limiting one voice allows

for another to speak).

Illegitimate harms violate people’s rights.

HARM PRIMCIPLE

“...the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a

civilized community, against his will, is to prevent [illegitimate] harm to others.” (Mill

1978, 9)

OFFENSE PRINCIPLE

“...it is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would

probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense...to persons other than the

actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end” (Feinberg 1985, 1).

In On Liberty John Stuart Mill, a Victorian philosopher, endorsed a strong form of free

speech:

“...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical

conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered...If all mankind minus one

were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be

no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be

justified in silencing mankind” (1978 [1859], 15-16).

Mill highlights physical harm as the only value that should be used to limit free

speech (or any other freedom).

In response to Mill, the philosopher Joel Feinberg argues that the Harm Principle

allows for too much free speech. He proposes instead:

Because people are offended by different things, applying the Offense Principle can be

difficult.

Contextual factors matter, including speakers’ motives,

number of people offended, and intensity of offense.

4

What place, if any, should hate speech have in a

democratic society?

HATE SPEECH is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race,

color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.

POLAND FRANCE GERMANY HUNGARY

Adam Gopnik of the New York Times writes, “The world on the whole regards our

approach [in the U.S.] as uncivilized and confused about the significant distinctions that

are necessary for truly free speech .” According to Gopnik, most of the world thinks that

Americans overlook important harms and costs of allowing as much freedom of speech as

we do.

Most democratic countries have laws prohibiting or limiting hate speech. These

include:

CANADA MEXICO

In the U.S., by contrast, the First Amendment protects hate speech and other offensive

speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that engaging in hateful thoughts and speech

are legal.

Hateful actions that cause physical harm, on the other hand, are not protected,

even in the U.S .

“I despise what you say, but will defend to the death your

right to say it.”

- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire (1906)

“What people can say can cause injury, can disclose

private information, can disclose harmful public

information. It’s not a free zone where you can do

anything because nothing matters. Speech matters.”

- Tim Scanlon (2008)

5

How should our local community respond to speech we deem

harmful or offensive? What values support such responses?

How should we respond to speech in our communities we deem harmful, of-

fensive, demeaning or otherwise problematic? Should members of our local

community enforce limits on free speech beyond those imposed by the law? If

so, how and why?

Recent Case from Northern Arizona:

On December 28, 2014 members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested gay

marriage and remarriage after divorce.

Many residents simply ignored the protestors.

About 50 locals formed a counter-protest with signs that read, for example,

“God hates hate” (see photo).

The Arizona Daily Sun chose not to cover the event as news. In a subsequent

editorial, the Daily Sun explained that to do so could aid the Westboro Baptist

members’ desire for publicity . The editors also judged the event not to be

newsworthy.

The NAU, Lumberjack, by contrast, ran a story covering the protest and

counter-protest

Credit: (NAU Lumberjack/Ashleigh Vance)

6

Contact PPI 928-523-8339

nau.ppi@nau.edu nau.edu/ppi

HOT TOPICS CAFÉ COMMUNITY COMMITTEE

The “hot topics” in the Hot Topics Cafés are selected by community members that represent diverse constituencies and viewpoints. We thank our committee for their participation.

*Voted on Spring, 2015 “Hot Topics.”

Flagstaff & Winslow

Sedona & the Verde Valley

Frankie Beeseley, Program Coordinator, Friends

of Flagstaff’s Future

*Joe Boles, Professor Emeritus, NAU College of

Arts and Letters

*Jean Malecki-Friedland, MD, MPH; County

Director and Chief Medical Professor andChair,

Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Miami

Miller School of Medicine; Co-Founder: The

Compassion Project

Jacque Gencarelle, Northern Arizona Behavioral

Health Association

*Barbara Hickman, Superintendent, Flagstaff

Unified School District

Sherman Stephens, Flagstaff Community

Craig Van Slyke, Dean, The W .A. Franke

College of Business

*Michael Vincent, Dean, NAU College of Arts

and Letters

*Karen Daines, Assistant City Manager, Sedona

Paul Friedman, Sedona Citizens for Civil Dialogue

*Kate Hawkes, Producing Artistic Director, Red

Earth Theatre

Darrin Karuzas, Principal, Sedona Red Rock High

School

*Sandy Moriarty, Sedona Mayor

Tom O’Halleran, Keep Sedona Beautiful; Board

Member, Verde River Basin Partnership

*Judy Reddington, Arts and Letters Advisory

Council, NAU; Board Member, Museum of Northern

Arizona; Board Director, Sedona International Film

Festival

*Steve Segner, Owner, El Portal; Chair, Lodging

Council, Sedona Chamber of Commerce

Patricia Lowell, Sedona Public Library, proxy for:

Virginia Volkman, Director, Sedona Public Library

Jessica Williamson, Sedona City Council

Ex officio

NAU's Philosophy in the Public

Interest is non partisan and does not

endorse any position with respect to

the issues we discuss. Philosophy in

the Public Interest is a neutral

convener for civil discourse.

NEXT FLAGSTAFF HOT TOPICS CAFÉ:

Environmental Change and Emerging

Pandemics

Andrea Houchard, NAU Philosophy in the Public

Interest

*Jona Vance, NAU Department of Philosophy

Robin Weeks, Osher Lifelong Learning Institute,

Yavapai College, Sedona Center

Randy Wilson, Arizona Daily Sun

Thursday, February 26

3 - 4:30 p.m.

Museum of Northern Arizona

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11346641/Charlie-Hebdo-founder-says-slain-editor-dragged-team-to-their-deaths.html http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/ http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/two-views-speech http://www.jackcentral.org/gallery/the-westboro-baptist-church-visits-flagstaff---dec/collection_d8ff2472-8ecb-11e4-9fd8-33ae24e4714e.html http://azdailysun.com/news/opinion/editors-column/between-the-lines-can-you-defend-uncivil-speech-if-you/article_a571a306-1b58-5db3-b66a-8e5a986d7795.html Warburton, Nigel. Free Speech A Very Short Introduction. N.p.: n.p., 2009. Print. Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Ed. Alan S. Kahan. N.p.: n.p., 2008. Print.

Sources