Is freedom of speech inherently valuable?

[sans qualia]

I fully believe that freedom of speech is necessary to ensure that any government is ruled by the will of its people. But suppose that we could be absolutely certain that legally prohibiting, say, Fred Phelps from spouting his disgusting vitriole would not cause any slippery-slope effect and would not cause the foundations of democracy to crumble and fail, or in any way diminish. Suppose that limiting hate speech would have no visible effect on our lives save silencing those who promote evil through their words. Would it still be wrong, from an ethical standpoint, to do so? Or is freedom of speech only good insofar as it prevents greater evil from befalling us?

[Maple]

1. Well Canada has free speech

with 'reasonable limits'

The 'No yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater' kind of thing.

No climbing on street corner soap boxes, and denouncing Group X, and encouraging people to hate/harm/beat/kill members of Group X.

Hate laws.

[punpirate]

2. Apply the Supreme Court standard...

... whenever necessary. Defense of one's views are acceptable, but as has been adjudicated in the past, inciting to riot and/or the proverbial "yelling fire in a crowded theater" are not.

Phelps is an asshole, but he's entitled to his views. However, if those views, for example, include advocating the murder of gays, he's crossed a line--that's incitement to violate the law, and therefore, what he's said doesn't fall under the protections of free speech.

You may not like what he says, but he's still got a right to say it. The greater problem with outlandish speech is not the speech itself, but the number of people taking it seriously. Educated, sensible people reject Phelps' views as hate-mongering. Scared, intimidated, self-conscious and/or fanatical people take him seriously.

In a democracy, the only real fear is that demagogues might gain the support of the majority. That's a real fear, and not one to be dismissed lightly. But, last time I looked, Phelps wasn't running this country. Even Bush isn't as crazy as Phelps is. Can it get worse? Indubitably.

But, that's what free speech is for, too--defining the assholes in society.

Cheers.

[adwon]

3. Wow

Your last line is perfect. I've always viewed free speech as the best method to undermine idiots. The longer they talk, the dumber they look! :P

[Maple]

4. Except it didn't work in Germany

The majority didn't see it as dumb.

Been there. Done that. Time to try something different.

[punpirate]

5. Keep in mind...

... that there wasn't any effective free speech in Germany during Hitler's rise to power--after the Reichstag fire, he was given exceptional (i.e, anti-democratic) powers to control the country.

In the absence of true free speech guarantees, the Nazis flourished.

That's why the maintenance of free speech guarantees in this country is so necessary today.

Edit for syntax.

[adwon]

6. I wasn't applying it worldwide

I meant speech in the US. As for Germany, there's an argument that it did work. After all, even after Hitler was installed as Chancellor and with the full power of the German government, the Nazis could only swing 44% of the vote in the elections for the Reichstag.

I would find the German example suspect anyway for another reason. Now, this is solely my opinion. The conclusion I drew from the facts available I have not seen anywhere else, so this is all me. With the warning done, the other reason I find the German example suspect is because I think it was one symptom of a general disease around the world. In the same period we see Stalin's purges and forced famines, the Japanese invasion of China, the Italian invasion of Ethopia, various colonial repressions, and the syphilis tests done at Tuskegee. I have a suspicion, not too well-researched, that humanity as a whole was suffering from a collective madness at the time. That madness culminated in WW2.

Anyway, everybody has their favorite crank theory. That's mine. Have fun with it.

[Just Me]

12. On an intuitive level,...

,...I am compelled to agree with your theory that "humanity as a whole was suffering from a collective madness". On an intuitive level, I feel that a similar collective insanity or confusion, perhaps a major shift in collective awareness, exists today.

[adwon]

42. Somewhat

I actually see the current situation as closer to about 1905-8 than the 1930s. Borrowing from Frank Herbert, sometimes humanity acts as a collective organism. When this organism feels that stasis has gone on too long, the reticence to fight a general war progressively weakens. The 1930s was more like a madness that evolved out of the unsettled underlying issues of WW1. The runup to WW1 came from a desire to seek life in death.

Once again, this ties into my personal crank theory. Though I borrow from Herbert, the mistakes are mine, not his.

[jdj]

9. yes, that's the point.

these folks are their own worst enemy.

the whole way Bush and co. keep in office is by suppressing OUR free speech, which is the truth, about them. So they voluntarily suppress the truth about themselves. Right now it's way more of an anti-trust issue with the media than a free speech issue.

[trebizond]

19. Exactly right

"But, that's what free speech if for, too--defining the assholes in society."

Definitely- if someone is a racist, a homophobe, or any other brand of idiot, I want them to be able to express this view, so that I can know not to take anythign they say seriosuly and indeed to avoid them in any way possible!

Give 'em enough rope!

[Syrinx]

7. I would really like to say

[Lexingtonian]

8. try it the otherway around

Try to find some form of government that restricted speech beyond e.g. military secrets and see how well that worked out. Essentially, when the government doesn't have the social consensus to suppress expression of certain ideas, punishments don't actually work to stop their spread and popularity.

The First Amendment is essentially a provision to prevent theocracy. Theocracy has to find ways to censor its critics, to keep them out of print, prevent them from speaking, coerce them to take back things they've said. Some will become absolutely determined and theocracies finally end up killing them- but thereby morally bankrupt themselves as manifestations of salvation and create a martyr. Have a look at the story of Mary Dyer and Quakers in Boston in 1657-1660. That story and that of the Salem Witch Trials ended up killing the Puritan theocracy in Massachusetts. Let me point out that e.g. Leninism can be considered a theology, as can e.g. Objectivism, Capitalism, Supply Side Economics, and just about every halfway serious, somewhat expansive, ideology. They become much more intelligible as political phenomena when understood as theologies.

As for the absolute and inherent merits of free speech...well, our material lives don't require it, so we can tolerate periods of great restriction. The life of the freed mind, of the spirit and creative imagination, does require it. That is why restricted speech is a calamity in the long run. Even Black Sabbaths and pornography and visual records of crimes, involving violations of the demand for purity as they do, are things the imagination demands to find in some manifestation- not to imitate, unless diseased, but as contrast and measure, as a horror visited in its lair. Better to have them in pictures than realities, I say. Adults tend to forget that the young need a full picture of the landscape of what being human entails.

[FtWayneBlue]

10. I believe Noam Chomskey had to defend his stand for free

speech. IIRC, he spoke up in defense of statements made by certain party that the Holocaust never happened. He was mistakenly thought to be supporting their idea, especially when statements to that effect were placed in the forward to their book. But he didn't back down on the right of all to free speech, no matter that most disagreed with what they were saying.

I for one intend to continue shouting "Theatre" in this crowded fire.

[forgethell]

11. No restrictions

should be placed on anybody's political speech. No matter how hateful it is. Our speech is hateful to many. What makes us a better judge than them? Let them speak; let us speak. Let the American voter decide who is right by comparing their arguments, their tone, the information freely available about them. Shrill, loud people with no facts or logic on their side will be found out in the end.

Besides, nobody can predict the future. How the hell can you be 'absolutely certain' that there will be no slippery-slope? You can't, and such ideas are very dangerous. But you are free to state them.

Freedom of speech is a good in and of itself. If you limit others, you will be limited when they have the power. Whoops, they do, and look like they will be keeping it for some time. So why do you think we can do it anyway?

This is a fascist idea.

[sans qualia]

26. First of all

I resent your calling me "fascist" for posing a hypothetical question.

Secondly, as I've already said, I'm not claiming that limiting hate speech wouldn't ultimately have any ill effects. It's an assumption that's only true for the purposes of this question.

[Trajan]

36. He didnt call you a fascist ....

He said it was a fascist idea .... understand the difference ? ...

[sans qualia]

37. Sure do

And you're right, so I guess I should say instead that my post was merely asking a question, not putting forward a suggestion. I apologize.

I honestly don't understand the antipathy I'm getting in this thread. Some people seem to be taking offense at my question.

[forgethell]

39. Free speech

is about the only weapon we've got left to advance our ideas. We've lost the Presidency, we've lost the Congress. We've lost, or are about to lose, the courts. We've lost heavily in the state governments.

But we've still got our voices. It would just be a major mistake to start dulling the edge of our only sword just right now. Or in my opinion, ever.

[forgethell]

38. First of all,

I didn't call you a fascist. I said it was a fascist idea. And it is.

Secondly, if you are only posing a hypothetical question, then why take offense when I said it was a fascist idea?

But let me make my own position clear. It would be the act of a fascist, dictatorial personality to impose such PC BS on the American public. If free speech is a value, it must apply to political speech, especially, not just pornography. Free speech has been a wonderful tool in the hands of the left, but it is more than a tool. If we give away this right to silence our political opponents, no matter how they offend us, we will regret it, sooner or later.

There is no constitutional right not to be offended. As long as they don't advocate violence, let them speak their piece. You do like it. Don't listen. Or listen and refute their arguments.

[H2O Man]

13. You can't yell "theater"

in a crowded fire for obvious reasons.

[mattclearing]

14. Freedom of Speech is inherently valuable.

Unhindered speech leads to communication. From dialogue spring new points of view, which in turn lead to new ideas.

New ideas = value.

[sans qualia]

24. But

If free speech is valuable only because it leads to the creation of new ideas, then it's not inherently valuable, is it?

[mattclearing]

32. Gold is only shiny and malleable, so it's not inherently valuable.

I don't understand your comment.

To the extent that speech is an idea, and not tangible, it is not inherently valuable.

And yet, every valuable thing the U.S. has done in the past two centuries is directly attributable to free speech.

[sans qualia]

33. In order for something to be inherently valuable

it must be valuable independent of any consequences that arise from it. For example, some people believe that happiness is inherently valuable, not because it leads to any greater good, but simply because it is the basis of their system of ethics; according to such an ethical system, the rightness or wrongness of an action would be judged by the degree to which it promotes happiness. Similarly, some people believe that freedom is the ultimate good, and they would probably consider free speech to be inherently valuable, because it constitutes a form of freedom.

If, as you said, free speech is valuable because it leads to the developmen of new ideas, then it is not inherently valuable, because its consequence (new ideas) is what is valuale in and of itself.

[mattclearing]

34. The OP's choice of words kind of misses the point.

and this is a sidebar that doesn't really address the post.

To the extent that the ability to speak my mind enriches my life and enables me to express my opinion, I believe that the freedom of speech is inherently valuable. To me. My sig kinda reflects that.

[sans qualia]

35. Um, well, speaking as the OP

I can assure you that this question was exactly the point of my post.

[mattclearing]

43. Are you looking for a ballpark dollar figure? n/t

[Withywindle]

40. That seems like kind of a tortured, overly theoretical

definition of "valuable" to me. Things are valuable because people value them, which they might do for all sorts of reasons: the inherent worth of the thing can be pretty hard to distinguish from the effect it has on people's lives, after all.

but I'll make a stab at the question. I think free speech is inherently valuable for several reasons.

(This is a causation reason, but bear with me). I believe the "natural" default human tendency is to want to express oneself. There has always been cultural tension around this, but I feel that it is a social good to have freedom of expression because I think excessive repression is unhealthy for individuals and for society as a whole. Some impulses obviously need to be repressed, but I am not convinced that speech is generally one of them.

People who fear they will be punished for verbally expressing ideas, over time, gradually come to censor themselves. This is both an inward and outward process. Their creativity and intellecutal interest can become diminished (use it or lose it); they can try to repress the creativity and curiosity of others out of envy or desire to protect that person from punishment. This can lead to both a diminishment of quality of life for individuals and a decline in innovation and invention in society (ever looked at a bunch of Nazi- or Stalinist-approved art?)

I think free speech is valuable because it is both a good abstract moral principle AND very practical for a functionining society. The imposition of excessive rules to regulate it creates a chilling effect over ALL speech.

I doubt this answers your question fully, but hey, I tried.

[tx_dem41]

15. Respectfully, your assumption is a fantasy.

By the time you have limited even the things you state, you haven't just started down the slippery slope, you have fallen 3/4's down the hill at breakneck speed.

[sans qualia]

23. Of course it is

That's what makes this a hypothetical question. You don't need to think my assumptions are realistic to answer.

[tx_dem41]

28. Since I can't fathom the assumption occurring....

it is almost impossible to shift the reference of my thinking to answer the question. So, I'll just say what I thought impulsively. Its a bad idea. What you are asking is the Government to censor every written word, every captured image, and every spoken utterance in this country. Quite frankly, if your idea ever came to fruition, I would be on the earliest possible plane out of this country.

[sans qualia]

29. No...

What you are asking is the Government to censor every written word, every captured image, and every spoken utterance in this country.

What I am asking is why we think free speech is as valuable as we do. I thought I made my position clear in the original post, but I guess I didn't. To clarify, I am completely opposed to any significant abridgement of the right to free speech, where insignificant abridgements include things like the "fire" in a crowded theater example.

Form your posts, it seems like your position is similar. All I'm asking is why: do you think that free speech is vital because it is good in and of itself, or because limiting free speech would lead to greater, more material problems?

[tx_dem41]

30. This sounds like a cliche...but freedom of speech is the most ...

tangible example of my freedom.

[BillZBubb]

16. It is inherently valuable, but it's not a guarantee of happy outcomes.

Going back to the Nazi Germany example mentioned before, there was a high degree of free speech in the Weimar period and it certainly helped the Nazi's build their movement.

One particular aspect of this has always intrigued me. For over a century in Germany there had been continual discussion of the so-called "Jewish problem". It was such a common topic that few non-Jews in Germany doubted that such a "problem" existed. Free speech evidently didn't lead to the end of such nonsense or prevent it from becoming ingrained in the German psyche. Grabbing this conventional "wisdom" greatly helped in the acceptance of the Nazi's and their policies in Germany.

"Hitler's Willing Executioners" covers this in better detail than I have. Certainly it is a great warning to those of us on the left to stand up to right wing racism and anti-semitism at every opportunity. Don't let bullshit go unchallenged. It could happen here.

[sans qualia]

31. Interesting response

Thank you.

[K-W]

17. No, definitely not.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater, as the obvious example.

The freedom of speech is only significant from any other freedom insomuch as its unjust removal encourages tyranny. But it is not inherently important, it is important because of the role it plays in certain vital contexts.

The standards for speech are the same as for any right. You have the right to act as long as doing so doesn't unduly burden the freedom of others.

[sans qualia]

27. Thank you

For a straightforward answer.

[mongo]

18. Prohibiting Phelps from speaking would definitely create a slippery slope

Perhaps we should prohibit the speech that the OP finds offensive? Who gets to decide what speech is prohibited and what speech is free?

[welshTerrier2]

20. the problem with free speech is ...

that it is no longer free ...

in the most rudimentary, egalitarian society, any individual could stand on a soapbox and address the citizenry ... the only limits on being heard were the limits on your ability to travel from town to town and the volume of your voice ... absent technology, and absent the repression of free speech, this is what democracy is all about ...

but now we have the power of technology introduced; especially the power of TV ... to those who can afford the price of this "free speech", more than a hundred million people can be spoken to at the same time ... try doing that from a soapbox ...

but with the introduction of technology and its exploitation by capitalism and the corporate state, the free speech citizens once enjoyed has been rendered virtually meaningless ... while there may be inherent value in free speech, there is comparitively much greater value in speech that must now be paid for at exorbitant rates ...

we should not tolerate the exploitation by mega-corporations of our mass media ... we should not accept the idea that those who can afford to address the nation should have the right to do so while citizens, who are not commercial entities with massive advertising budgets, cannot ... we have become so conditioned to accept the idea of capitalism that few can see that corporations have the resources to be heard when average citizens do not ... nothing could me more destructive to free speech and the democratic traditions it embodies ...

my proposal? for every minute of commercial "airtime" purchased by corporations, citizens should have FREE EQUAL time to respond ... if a company wants to push cars, fine ... citizens groups supporting mass transit as an alternative should have FREE EQUAL time to respond ...

if we allow high prices to be charged to address the citizenry, and only the super-wealthy can afford such expenses, we have allowed our democracy to be sold to the highest bidder ... and that's no democracy at all ...

[forgethell]

21. I have a better idea.

The citizens's should have equal time, but IT MUST BE PAID FOR, perhaps at a greatly reduced, but still a significant "citizen's" price. This would insure that all ideas were heard, if they could attract the kind of support that, say, DU does.

That way, the nutjobs like the KKK woudl soon be reduced back to their soapboxes because nobody would support their efforts. Otherwise, I think you wuld open the gates of hell. Everytime some commercial came on promoting, oh, say, children's aid to Africa, or another worhthy cause, the Social Darwinists could claim equal time.

Nope, we've got the best system right now.

[K-W]

22. The common US concept of free speech doesnt account for limited access.

Which makes that concept of free speech very flawed.

[forgethell]

41. It's always been

the person who owned a press who had freedom of the press. Nothing inherently wrong with that, really. To attempt to give everyone access would infringe upon other people's rights. Everyone has the freedom to try to acquire a 'press'.

Along with the freedom of speech goes a corollary right: the freedom not to listen. This is what, I think, really gripes a lot of people. They aren't listening to us. Because the message is getting out. I hear and read it all the time, no just here on DU. People are choosing not to listen. Now why, I'm not prepared to say. I'm still formulating my ideas. But there is no doubt that the cons present their ideas more effectively than we do.

[leftofthedial]

25. no

unless of course you are a corporation or corporate lobby bribing a politician. Then it is a sacred, gawd-given right.