When Protest and Speech Collide

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Estlund
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
College Campus ◽  
Moral Principle ◽  
Public Protest ◽  
The Face ◽  
As If

Even when it is not violent, a disruptive public protest often raises our hackles. Even when it is not illegal, we might wonder whether it is morally justifiable. In particular, one of the ways a protest can be disruptive—interfering with the ability of others to speak or express themselves—might seem especially damning. Such speech-interfering protests are often vilified, as if they fly in the face of the principle of freedom of speech, or even of the Constitution itself. Ought a protest’s interfering with the speech of others to count morally against that protest—is it forbidden by a moral principle of free speech? While it will be morally wrong in many cases, the moral presumption against it, even in the setting of a college campus, is not as overwhelming as is often supposed.

Principle, Pragmatism, and Paralysis: Stanley Fish on Free Speech

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Robertson
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
False Belief ◽  
Main Section ◽  
Stanley Fish ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Relationship

Unlike those who read Fish as declaring that free speech is an illusion or incoherent, I argue that Fish provides a superior explanation of what makes free speech possible, and a more insightful description of what judges are doing when they decide cases under laws which protect it. In this paper I first identify the central philosophical commitment from which Fish derives most of his controversial positions. Next, I demonstrate how his position on free speech in particular flows from this central philosophical commitment. Finally, in the main section of the paper, I consider three serious objections to Fish’s analysis of free speech, and consider how Fish might respond to them. I seek to defend Fish's denial that the relationship between freedom and constraint is one of simple opposition; rather he claims that constraint is the precondition for freedom. He therefore sees all speech as made under conditions of constraint. He also sees a commitment to censoring some speech as inherently contained within any commitment to freedom of speech, and so toleration of all viewpoints is impossible. He denies that any free speech principle can be neutral regarding viewpoints, and he denies that any "free market of ideas" is without bias and exclusions. He therefore rejects the accounts given by American courts deciding cases under the First Amendment which stress a fidelity to neutral principle. Since there are no such principles in existence, such courts are really doing one of two things. Either they are pragmatically advancing a partisan agenda, and constraining some speech in a way which is obfuscated, or their false belief in the existence of neutral principles paralyses them in the face of danger and prevents them from performing this pragmatic exercise.

The Logic of ‘But’: Quarrels, Literature and Democracy

Paragraph ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 114-130
Author(s):  
Thomas Docherty
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The Way

This paper looks at intrinsic disputation within proposition, and specifically within propositions that offer a moderated version of the freedom of speech and expression. It begins from a consideration of what is at stake in Othello's ‘Rude am I in my speech’, a rhetorical gesture that frames an act of great eloquence, and in which the eloquence serves to formulate a quarrel by ostensibly resolving it. This example reveals that there is a conflict between empirical quarrel and articulated spoken resolution. This leads the essay to explore the way in which diplomacy works, whereby we establish the pretence that there is peace between disputatious positions through the power of the logic of ‘but’, thus: ‘I agree with you, but …’. Finally, this is extended to a consideration of the limits of and/or on free speech: ‘I defend free speech, but …’, where the ‘but’ is a gesture in which the defence of free speech is modified to the point of being obliterated.

PERSECUTION AND THE ART OF FREEDOM: ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE ON THE IMPORTANCE OF FREE PRESS AND FREE SPEECH IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-208
Author(s):  
Khalil M. Habib
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Alexis De Tocqueville ◽  
Free Society ◽  
Free Press ◽  
Constituent Element ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Right ◽  
Shed Light

AbstractAccording to Tocqueville, the freedom of the press, which he treats as an extension of the freedom of speech, is a primary constituent element of liberty. Tocqueville treats the freedom of the press in relation to and as an extension of the right to assemble and govern one’s own affairs, both of which he argues are essential to preserving liberty in a free society. Although scholars acknowledge the importance of civil associations to liberty in Tocqueville’s political thought, they routinely ignore the importance he places on the freedom of the press and speech. His reflections on the importance of the free press and speech may help to shed light on the dangers of recent attempts to censor the press and speech.

Positive Free Speech: A Democratic Freedom

2021 ◽  
pp. 230-248
Author(s):  
Andrew T. Kenyon
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Media Freedom ◽  
Public Speech ◽  
Positive Freedom ◽  
Negative Liberty ◽  
Structural Dimensions ◽  
Democratic Freedom ◽  
Legal Right

This chapter explores the positive structural dimensions of the freedom of speech by using a democratic free speech rationale. While far from the only aspect of positive free speech, it offers a useful example of the freedom’s positive dimensions. The chapter focuses on legal conditions underlying public speech and their links to democratic constitutional arrangements. It outlines the general approach before drawing brief comparisons with two well-known US approaches to free speech and media freedom. The chapter then highlights two of the multiple ways in which ‘positive’ can be used in relation to free speech. Positive may concern positive freedom, the idea that freedom is not only a negative liberty but requires support or enablement. It can also be used in terms of a positive right, typically a legal right enforced through courts.

“[T]his most unnecessary, unjust, and disgraceful war”

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 82-103
Author(s):  
Juhani Rudanko
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
War Of 1812 ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
The Federalist ◽  
Sedition Act ◽  
The Face ◽  
Federalist Party

This article focuses on face-threatening attacks on the Madison Administration during the War of 1812. The discussion is framed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, with the language of the Amendment protecting freedom of speech, and also by the Sedition Act of 1798, which, if it had been made permanent, would have seriously curtailed freedom of speech. The War of 1812 was intensely unpopular among members of the Federalist Party, and their newspapers did not shy away from criticising it. This article investigates writings published in the Boston Gazette and the Connecticut Mirror during the war. It is shown that the criticism took different forms, ranging from accusing President Madison of “untruths” to painting a picture of what was claimed to be the unmitigated hopelessness of his position, both nationally and internationally, and that the criticism also included harsh personal attacks on his character and motives. It is suggested that some of the attacks may be characterised as exhibiting aggravated impoliteness. The article also considers President Madison’s attitude in the face of the attacks.

scholarly journals Optimal utility and probability functions for agents with finite computational precision

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keno Juechems ◽  
Jan Balaguer ◽  
Bernhard Spitzer ◽  
Christopher Summerfield
Keyword(s):  
Selective Pressure ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Internal Representation ◽  
Simple Assumption ◽  
Probability Functions ◽  
True Value ◽  
The Face ◽  
Economic Choices ◽  
As If

When making economic choices, such as those between goods or gambles, humans act as if their internal representation of the value and probability of a prospect is distorted away from its true value. These distortions give rise to decisions which apparently fail to maximise reward, and preferences that reverse without reason. Why would humans have evolved to encode value and probability in a distorted fashion, in the face of selective pressure for reward-maximising choices? Here, we show that under the simple assumption that humans make decisions with finite computational precision – in other words, that decisions are irreducibly corrupted by noise – the distortions of value and probability displayed by humans are approximately optimal in that they maximise reward and minimise uncertainty. In two empirical studies, we manipulate factors that change the reward-maximising form of distortion, and find that in each case, humans adapt optimally to the manipulation. This work suggests an answer to the longstanding question of why humans make “irrational” economic choices.

scholarly journals Scholarship Suppression: Theoretical Perspectives and Emerging Trends

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Stevens ◽  
Lee Jussim ◽  
Nathan Honeycutt
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Real World ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Sociological Analysis ◽  
The Past ◽  
Academic Scholarship ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Emerging Trends ◽  
Free Speech Rights

This paper explores the suppression of ideas within academic scholarship by academics, either by self-suppression or because of the efforts of other academics. Legal, moral, and social issues distinguishing freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and academic freedom are reviewed. How these freedoms and protections can come into tension is then explored by a sociological analysis of denunciation mobs who exercise their legal free speech rights to call for punishing scholars who express ideas they disapprove of and condemn. When successful, these efforts, which constitute legally protected speech, will suppress certain ideas. Real-world examples over the past five years of academics who have been sanctioned or terminated for scholarship targeted by a denunciation mob are then explored.

Where to limit the freedom of speech? Analysis in the context of the First Amendment to the US Constitution and the fighting words doctrine

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-256
Author(s):  
Karolina Palka
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Socialist ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Socialist Party Of America ◽  
The Right

This article is about the limits of the right to free speech. The first section provides a brief introduction to this topic, primarily in the context of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The second section describes the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which was fundamental to the topic of this paper because the United States Supreme Court created the so-called "fighting words" doctrine based on it. In the next two sections, two court cases are presented that perfectly demonstrate the limits of the right to free speech in the United States: Snyder v. Phelps and Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America. The fifth part shows the right to freedom of speech in the context of Polish civil, criminal, and constitutional law, as well as acts of international law binding on Poland. The last part is a short summary.

Text and Republican Government

2021 ◽  
pp. 57-82
Author(s):  
George Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Religious Liberty ◽  
Republican Government ◽  
New Republic ◽  
Constitutional Meaning ◽  
Constitutional Republic

Early conflicts over religious liberty and freedom of speech reveal that while we can agree on the Constitution’s text, we can profoundly disagree over the unwritten ideas we think the text represents. Debates about religion and free speech point to deeper unwritten principles that are at the very heart of America’s constitutional republic. The first debate deals with the prohibition on religious tests for office in Article VI. The second speaks to freedom of speech and press. In these early debates about religious liberty and freedom of speech, the antagonists agreed on the wording of constitutional text; they disagreed profoundly on the principles and political theory that underlie it in their understanding of America’s new republic. These early arguments reveal the importance of constructing constitutional meaning from the unwritten ideas that underlie the constitutional text.

Freedom of Speech

2020 ◽  
pp. 191-213
Author(s):  
Alison Scott-Baumann ◽  
Mathew Guest ◽  
Shuruq Naguib ◽  
Sariya Cheruvallil-Contractor ◽  
Aisha Phoenix
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Government Policies ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Risk Averse ◽  
Face To Face

Media and government accuse students of being libertarian (encouraging reckless free speech) or of too much no-platforming (banning external speakers). Both accusations are exaggerated but influential and make it difficult for students to develop face to face conversations about difficult and controversial topics. Government policies on securitization (Prevent) encourage risk averse behaviour, particularly but not exclusively among Muslims. Staff also feel constrained by these pressures and so staff and students self-censor. Analysis of free speech models available in a liberal democracy show two main types, each of which can become an extreme version of itself. The liberal model advocates legal free expression; however if exaggerated the liberal model becomes libertarian and can be offensive. The second approach is the guarded liberal model that seeks to protect minorities but if exaggerated it can turn into no platforming. Students and staff can learn to use combinations of all four approaches and increase face to face discussions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document