Highly controversial, free speech is essential for a government based on people's consent. However, debates often rage about what free speech is. While libertarians and anarcho-capitalists support free speech in its entirety, statists believe in only protecting political speech.
While protected political speech is a beneficial right that guards against governmental coercion, we should not stop there. By protecting only political speech we limit individuals' rights. Statists base this censorship on their preferred morality. However, coercing an individual to accept a belief they did not accept on free choice is wrong (the Harm Principle to be explained in a later essay). And statists have not historically stopped at non-political speech. Eventually, they claim certain political speech is dangerous to the country and government, and attempt to censor it. Note the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, or McCarthyism.
Statists, arguing for governmental interference in our lives, base their political theories on collectivism as opposed to individualism. By their reasoning, the government should enforce societal morality. Often societal morality is more about personal choice than society-affecting damage. A government should protect against victimizing crime, not support the ruler's morality.
Wasn't free speech historically political? Was it not used for good? No, because the Founding Fathers and early politicians were often viciously personal in their attacks. Referring to Federalists in a letter to John Taylor on June 4, 1798 Thomas Jefferson wrote, "A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to it's true principles." Likewise, Federalist newspapers claimed that electing
Won't the world be an unsatisfactory place if speak their mind (often offensively)? No, because a built-in mechanism exists for regulation: society. When an offensive statement occurs, society will censor them by the collected preferences of individuals. If the statement goes uncensored the statement was not offensive enough to warrant action. If people believe it is offensive they can advocate societal censorship. The government should not decide what is offensive or inoffensive.
Finally, we must remember that non-offensive speech does not need protection, only offensive speech does.
Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.
Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.
4 comments:
Very enjoyable post :]
Thank you, though I wish I'd had time to analyze it more in-depth.
Free speech..
A very touchy subject indeed.
I think free speech can be applied for any situation within sensible means.
As in, you can't shout "fire!" within a burning building, or insult a person for no reason. Those reasons cross the boundries of common sense. While sensibility of speech is not a nature found in the regular, untamed human, the effect of society and mental conscience should be censorship enough too let us know what is allowed to be said and what is not
I believe you meant a non-burning building, but technicalities aside I agree. You shouldn't say such things, but society is there to censor you through its own mechanisms. Therefore, you retain the right to say it, and you may say it, but society can prevent you, if they desire, from being a nuisance. Government should not be involved at all.
Post a Comment