Freedom of expression – restricting speech for the sake of free speech Essay Example

impede their capacity to participate in substantial conversations. These effects are observable through empirical evidence.

This essay will discuss the examination of claims and their impact on freedom of speech. The following section carefully analyzes arguments against speech restrictions, arguing that they may not be considered as 'silencing' and thus do not violate freedom of speech. However, it will be demonstrated that these objections can actually limit freedom of speech. Therefore, there are specific situations where speech should be restricted (as explained later on).

Restricting freedom of speech, despite its importance in safeguarding individual rights, can impact other values cherished by liberals such as public order and equality. An instance of this is the potential for racist hate speech to provoke social unrest and degrade the dignity of victims and their communities, thereby infringing upon their right to equal protection.

Despite the terrible effects of restricting speech, this paper will not focus on them for three reasons. Firstly, these effects are not defining characteristics of 'silencing' speech, which is the main topic here. Secondly, arguments regarding public order, morality, and security will not be persuasive to liberals who prioritize free speech. The main concern is equality as it holds significant value for many contemporary liberals, which puts them in a difficult position of making choices between conflicting commitments.

A more traditional liberal may argue that liberty is of greater importance than equality and would therefore reject any such argument. To sway someone who strongly opposes speech restrictions, it must be shown that limiting speech could actually benefit the value of freedom of speech itself. The subsequent discussion centers around arguments in

favor of this notion. An exemplification of such an argument is MacKinnon's case for 'Positive' Liberty, wherein she asserts that protecting and enhancing freedom of speech should involve curtailing men's speech, as it encroaches upon women's freedom.

Traditional liberals disagree with the conceptual claim made by the silencing argument that freedom of speech encompasses these 'positive' liberties. R. Dworkin critiques MacKinnon's argument as it is based on an unacceptable idea that the right to free speech includes the right to certain conditions that encourage expression and the right for others to understand and respect one's intended message.

He argues that the right to free speech is the freedom from interference by other agents and authorities, a negative liberty. However, I find this dichotomy of freedom concepts unhelpful. As MacCullum's critique of Berlin's influential lecture demonstrates, freedom is actually a triadic relation. All statements about freedom follow the structure of 'An agent x is (is not) free from constraint/interference y to do (not do, become, not become) goal z'.

MacKinnon and Dworkin hold different opinions regarding the definition of a limitation on freedom of speech. According to MacKinnon, free expression is impeded when a speaker is unable to be heard, comprehended, or receive attention. Conversely, Dworkin contends that as long as individuals can openly express their ideas without government control over the content, impediments to being heard or understood do not restrict freedom.

In order to determine the most suitable definition of free speech, it is important to consider a different viewpoint that does not depend on 'positive' liberty. O. Fiss proposes giving priority to the democratic theory when interpreting freedom of

speech (particularly in regards to the US constitution). This theory highlights the significance of safeguarding freedom of speech as a collective freedom instead of exclusively concentrating on an individual's right to express their thoughts.

The significance of free speech in enabling citizens' collective self-determination lies in its role beyond self-expression or self-actualization. It facilitates individuals to understand diverse issues and arguments, allowing them to freely pursue their objectives by accessing different perspectives. Consequently, restricting speech may be necessary to strengthen democracy and serve a valuable public purpose.

Fiss' deliberative perspective on democracy emphasizes the need to prevent powerful voices from silencing or obstructing less powerful voices. This requires minimizing the influence of certain voices in order to highlight others. In contrast, the conventional liberal viewpoint argues that state regulation may enhance the speech rights of some groups while limiting those of others. Therefore, this perspective believes that it is not the state's role to mediate conflicting interests among different groups.

The objection to the right of free speech is invalid, but it is crucial to acknowledge that the concern relates to equal opportunity for participation in public debate. These claims are valuable in promoting the interests of the general public by enabling a comprehensive and open discussion on matters of public importance. The state's objective is not to control individual self-expression, but rather create conditions essential for collective self-governance, ensuring all perspectives are presented to the public. In essence, this underscores the importance of democracy.

B. Parekh argues that the belief in preserving individuals' right to self-expression does not mean rejecting it outright, but rather offers a way to deal with

the limitations of the liberal discourse on free speech. The liberal discourse tends to reduce speech from an interpersonal and public act to a personal and subjective one. Additionally, it shifts focus from the collective public domain to an individual's desire or need for self-expression.

According to the libertarian viewpoint, in order to protect free speech, listeners should not interfere with it and should accept any harm that may arise from the speaker's words. However, critics argue that proponents of this position do not sufficiently explain why listeners, especially those who are harmed by offensive speech, should prioritize the speaker's interests over their own.

The notion that freedom of speech is essential for human progress, often associated with classical Millian-utilitarian thinking, may not be understood by supporters of democratic theory, which is rooted in a less elitist concept (i.e., democracy). Nevertheless, this democratic perspective backs the idea that restricting speech to safeguard freedom of speech can be warranted. Despite this compelling argument, fervent advocates of a libertarian interpretation of freedom of speech as an individual's "negative" right to express themselves may still object to such limitations.

According to Dworkin, the concept of expanding negative liberty is challenged by classifying certain ideas as 'silencing' ideas. He argues that all ideas should have the freedom to be expressed, even if it means that other ideas may be misunderstood or left unspoken due to individuals not having complete control over how they are perceived publicly and being unable to fully convey their intended meaning. Although these consequences may have adverse impacts, they do not infringe upon others' right to free speech.

To dispute and

persuade 'the unbelieving libertarian', I will analyze the reason why liberals value freedom of speech. In essence, words (including pictures and videos) are not inherently valuable; they serve as a means for individuals to convey their thoughts and ideas to others. Hence, "freedom of speech ultimately encompasses the ability to communicate. The ideas and opinions expressed through words are the things that hold intrinsic or instrumental value," as Maitra and McGowan succinctly summarize the underlying principle behind any liberal support for free speech.

The authors propose a framework for evaluating the value of freedom of speech, which emphasizes the importance of making a credible argument rather than assigning inherent value to words. According to Dworkin et al., free speech requires minimal distribution, comprehension, and consideration. They argue that the ability to share thoughts and ideas with others relies on being able to distribute words (and similar forms of expression) to them.

Understanding the words in a speech is vital for it to hold meaning. In order to protect freedom of speech, it is important that if a speaker uses fitting words and an audience wants to hear the message, no individual, group, or institution should obstruct the audience's comprehension. Those who value speech will agree that certain types of interference are contradictory to freedom of speech.

The significance of communication lies in the potential influence our words can have on listeners. Mill, a renowned liberal figure, believed that for truth to prevail, all aspects of it, including differing opinions, should be advocated for and heard. This indicates that when Mill spoke about being "listened to," he intended for some level of consideration

to be given.

In order for ideas to have value, they must be comprehended and recognized. Therefore, any Millian justification of free speech, which seeks to advance humanity's progressive interests, necessitates a certain level of contemplation. This advancement can only occur through the exchange of viewpoints and concepts, where audiences must regularly evaluate the merit conveyed in a speaker's words. The remaining question is: how much contemplation is required?

This passage does not argue for a specific threshold requirement, but even a simple guideline stating that free speech means refraining from consistently hindering another person's speech can be violated through speech. By reconsidering MacCullum's idea of freedom as a triadic relation, it becomes clear once again that the distinction between different interpretations of free speech is not just about 'positive' and 'negative' liberty, but rather about what is considered a restriction.

It is crucial for any reasonable ideas to recognize that violations of minimum requirements act as limitations on freedom of speech. These violations impede the dissemination and understanding of speech, ultimately undermining the exchange of ideas. It is widely acknowledged that speech, by its nature, can potentially infringe on all three aspects of free speech, thereby encroaching upon the freedom of others to different extents.

Prof. C. Lawrence illustrates the Klan's burning of a cross on the lawn of a Black individual, which presents a menacing danger due to its historical ties with lynching and violence. Consequently, this targeted act not only intimidates but also suppresses the voice of the affected person, as there exists a valid correlation between racist hate speech and racist brutality.

In conclusion,

The previous discussion has shown that speech can hinder a person's freedom of speech, even within the narrowest interpretation of this important liberal principle. Hence, even those who strongly advocate for the right to free speech should back the regulation of speech in certain situations. Failing to do so would mean forsaking the principle of free speech and descending into chaos.

While it is crucial to restrict interference in muted expression in certain circumstances, it is not universally suitable. Instead, the choice should rely on a comprehensive evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of such a strategy. The precise definition or criteria for free speech and whether an unwavering dedication to it or other considerations like equality are taken into account ought to have a significant impact on this assessment.

The decision to limit the dissemination of hateful words or allow for the spread of silenced words is based on perceiving freedom of speech as unconditional. However, even in this simplified situation, if the overall result is positive, it becomes essential to restrict speech that suppresses others so as to maintain the importance of freedom of speech.

The more importance given to free speech, including its potential limitations, and the inclusion of values like equality and 'public freedom of speech', the greater the likelihood that a restriction will be imposed. It is important to emphasize that I am not promoting a total regulation of hate speech and similar types of expression; their freedom is essential, but it must be approached with caution. Nevertheless, there are instances where certain speeches not only suppress but also lead to consequences that justify

restrictions.