Commercial Speech and the Values of Free Expression

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-77
Author(s):  
Shubha Ghosh

Building on a public address given at NLU-Delhi in May, 2016, this Article examines the question of the relationship between economic liberalism and democracy. Is it a contradiction, or even a matter of concern, for a society to have free speech but not free markets, as Ronald Coase suggested? The Article resolves the tension through a consideration of the two different meanings of freedom and the differing, even if overlapping, goals of markets and politics. The ongoing debate over free expression and trademarks serves to anchor the argument with the main conclusion that commercial speech offers a unique example for economic liberalism and democracy, one that is distinct from the need for a multiplicity of viewpoints in the marketplace for ideas. The Article examines these ideas both in current United States Supreme Court jurisprudence and in global debates.


Author(s):  
Evan Osborne

Does humanity progress primarily through leaders organizing and directing followers, or through trial and error by individuals free to chart their own path? For most of human history ruling classes had the capacity and the desire to tightly regiment society, to the general detriment of progress. But beginning in the 1500s, Europeans developed a series of arguments for simply leaving well enough alone. First in the form of the scientific method, then in the form of free expression, and finally in the form of the continuously, spontaneously reordered free market, people began to accept that progress is hard, and requires that an immense number of mistakes be tolerated so that we may learn from them. This book tells the story of the development of these three ideas, and for the first time tells of the mutual influence among them. It outlines the rise, and dramatic triumph, of each of these self-regulating systems, followed by a surprising rise in skepticism, especially in the economic context. Such skepticism in the 20th century was frequently costly and sometimes catastrophic. Under the right conditions, which are more frequent than generally believed, self-regulating systems in which participants organize themselves are superior. We should accept their turbulence in exchange for the immense progress they generate.


2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-169
Author(s):  
Teresa M. Bejan

AbstractThe classical liberal doctrine of free expression asserts the priority of speech as an extension of the freedom of thought. Yet its critics argue that freedom of expression, itself, demands the suppression of the so-called “silencing speech” of racists, sexists, and so on, as a threat to the equal expressive rights of others. This essay argues that the claim to free expression must be distinguished from claims to equal speech. The former asserts an equal right to express one’s thoughts without interference; the latter the right to address others, and to receive a hearing and consideration from them, in turn. I explore the theory of equal speech in light of the ancient Athenian practice of isegoria and argue that the equality demanded is not distributive but relational: an equal speaker’s voice should be counted as “on a par” with others. This ideal better captures critics’ concerns about silencing speech than do their appeals to free expression. Insofar as epistemic and status-harms provide grounds for the suppression and exclusion of some speech and speakers, the ideal of equal speech is more closely connected with the freedom of association than of thought. Noticing this draws attention to the continuing—and potentially problematic—importance of exclusion in constituting effective sites of equal speech today.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abhinav Dubey ◽  
Nikolay Stoyanov ◽  
Thibault Viennet ◽  
Sandeep Chhabra ◽  
Shantha Elter ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document