The benefits of free speech and expression

Chapter 2 argues that John Stuart Mill supported free speech on the grounds of the beneficial effects it can have, in Chapter 2 of his On Liberty of 1859. But the history in chapter 1 suggests that this has been a recurrent view through the ages. If free speech is valued for its benefits, speech that frustrates those benefits suggests a clear boundary on free speech which should appeal voluntarily to its supporters. Their voluntary self-restraint in speech should normally be better than legal constraint for keeping speech beneficial. But self-restraint is not the only preserver of benefits. Speech that opens ears, to take an expression of Gandhi’s—in his case, the ears of powerful opponents—is also a preserver of benefits.

The benefits seen in free speech and its gradual extension from some to all

Chapter 1 points out that the idea of free speech for all became widespread comparatively late. On the whole, it was treated as a prerogative of some people only, although an early exception was the Buddhist emperor Ashoka in India, who encouraged Buddhists of all persuasions to live and talk with each other and learn from each other, and people of different religions to do the same. Although it otherwise took a long time for free speech and expression to be extended to all, nonetheless, through different ages and cultures from antiquity to the present, the award of free speech, whether to some or to all, was seen as resulting in speech of a beneficial sort. That is why the title of this book speaks of good speech and its misuse, rather than simply of speech and its misuse.

Free speech on social media

Chapter 3 turns to an important problem of the present day. It says that law is after all required if freedoms are to be preserved, when some of the online social media offset the benefits they have to offer by basing their profits on exploiting personal profiles based on personal data left online by users. It spells out the bad effects of this and counters the suggestion that any media producing these bad effects can claim to be supporting free speech as understood by those reviewed in chapters 1 and 2. It supports the education of nine- to eleven-year-olds in detecting fake news and targeted news, and recommends encouraging compliant media. But with reference to government documents, it also proposes new legislation and new methods of enforcement against such misuse of speech.