The shape of free speech: rethinking liberal free speech theory (original) (raw)
Related papers
Towards a Post-Liberal Theory of Free Speech
Debates about free expression commonly divide along clear lines. At one end, a longstanding civil libertarian tradition applies some version of John Stuart Mill’s famous harm principle – even when its adherents don’t use that phrase and haven’t even read Mill. Government, they claim, must not censor repugnant ideas. Since the late 20th century, post-colonial, black empowerment, radical feminist, queer, and other critical movements have waged forceful challenges to that tradition. They have questioned the liberal assumption that all citizens can speak with equal voices within an open ‘marketplace’ of ideas. Those dichotomies between "liberal" and "critical", far from surpassing the classical paradigm, only ever entrench it, leading to perpetual impasses in debates about free speech. This piece seeks new terms for the debate, suggesting that a "democratic" view does not necessarily collapse either into a straightforward majoritarian or a liberal one.
The liberal conception of free speech and its limits
Jurisprudence, 2024
Unfortunately, many people today see the regulation of lies, disinformation, hate speech, and fake news as an infringement of free speech, at least when such speech is 'political,' despite the damage that such speech can do. But this very protective attitude toward speech rests on a mistaken understanding of the role of free speech in a liberal society. The right to free speech is based on the liberal value of freedom, and as such can be no broader than freedom itself. And freedom has always been subject to reasonable limits in a liberal society. Indeed, while the principles of toleration and neutrality are often cited as supporting a broad interpretation of the right to free speech, they also tell us that certain limits apply to that right. We need not tolerate speech that encourages intolerance, and while government should be neutral between reasonable conceptions of the good, it need not be neutral between reasonable and unreasonable conceptions. These ideas form the framework of liberal society, and as I shall show, also provide a guide for understanding what kind of speech is protected in a liberal society and what it is not.
An anti-liberal defence of free speech
Western democracies determine the extent and limits of free expression largely within rights-based frameworks. As captured by Mill's classically liberal 'harm principle', expression is permitted except insofar as legislatures and courts deem it to cause some unacceptable harm. Yet we can identify distinctly democratic principles very different from the standard liberal principles. Revisiting democratic theory, we discover that questions of legal legitimacy invariably become questions of civic participation; and civic participation is nothing if not expression. It is no exaggeration to suggest that Western political philosophy altogether begins with that observation: Plato's Crito presents the West's first systematic enquiry into the question of legal legitimacy – that is, the question of when the law can bind us through moral rightness, beyond sheer physical coercion. The law binds us precisely to the extent of the freedom we have enjoyed to disagree with it.
Feminist Dissent
Many of us struggle to make sense of what is without doubt a deepening global socio-economic and political crisis, and at the heart of this crisis lies an unprecedented and multi-directional assault on freedom of speech. But what is free speech? How should it be exercised and to what ends? These are more difficult questions to navigate in contexts of growing divisions in society, the crises of state governabilities, people’s governmentalities and disparities in power and wealth. Debates about freedom of speech are not new; however, the form they take now seems particularly vindictive and violent. Across the world, we are witness to disturbing moves to curtail free speech in liberal democracies and totalitarian states alike and among left wing as well as right wing movements. As recent events show, free speech is the first casualty of all forms of authoritarianism including religious fundamentalism. And from this flow a range of other crackdowns on civil society and serious human rig...
Beyond Positive and Negative Conceptions of Free Speech
Blurring the Lines: Market-Driven and Democracy-Driven Freedom of Expresion (edited by Maria Edström, Andrew T. Kenyon, Eva-Maria Svensson)
Freedom of speech, and associated notions like media freedom, are values that few oppose in principle. Yet their definitions, interpretations and limits are subject to endless contestation politically and philosophically. This chapter seeks to introduce fresh perspectives into conceptual debates on free speech from contemporary political philosophy and democratic theory. Different conceptions of freedom have traditionally been discussed in terms of the dichotomy of positive and negative freedom. Beyond these frameworks, this chapter reviews an emerging third perspective, in which communicative freedom is no longer understood as a state that can be unambiguously achieved or attached to universal, definite conditions of realisation. Instead, freedom is seen as always provisional and partial, something that calls for ongoing resistance against a wide range of constraints and limits.
Outline of a critical sociology of free speech in everyday life: Beyond liberal approaches
The Sociological Review, 2024
Critical sociologists have been conspicuous by their absence in theoretical debates about free speech in everyday life. The aim of this article is to address this missing gap in critical sociology by making some tentative suggestions about how such a theory might advance. Drawing mainly from the ideas of Pierre Bourdieu and Judith Butler, the article suggests that free speech occurs when coalitions come together in venues to discuss the possession and dispossession of certain resources; resources that coalitional members enjoy or are denied from enjoying in social fields. If a coalition engages in dialogue and other types of expression that pushes for an equal distribution of different resources so as to make lives more liveable, then the coalition will most likely also be constructing subversive 'heretical discourse'. Furthermore, the coalition will also most likely be challenging dominant and hegemonic symbolic constructions of 'linguistic competence' in a social field. The article develops these points by analysing two prominent liberal schools of thought on free speech: the marketplace of ideas school and the deliberative school. The article argues that these liberal schools cannot satisfactorily account for power relations and complexity of identity formation in relation to free speech.
The ‘free speech’ of the (un)free
Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 2018
This auto-ethnography explores the ways in which storytelling can illuminate the ways in which an ‘Islamist’ can(not) engage in ‘free speech’. It argues the double bind that Muslims find themselves (condemn OR be condemned) in the War on Terror exposes the ‘liberal swindle’ that is free speech. Through storytelling and a ring composition, the author analyses his own engagement in academia and how as a Muslim he is compelled to code his dissent through toying with academic form rather than content.
Philosophy & Social Criticism, 2014
Deliberative democracy's approach with its emphasis on a multidimensional conception of freedom is very well suited to offer a sophisticated and critical account of freedom of speech in the democratic public sphere. Nevertheless, it has rarely engaged other competing free speech theories in order to offer a valuable social critique of other ways of thinking about freedom of expression. This article tries to fill this gap by critically engaging Robert Post's theory of freedom of speech based on democratic self-government. On Post's account, the key to effective democratic self-government is political autonomy, which he reduces to negative liberty and formal equality. I argue that this reduction creates serious problems. A purely procedural account of democracy makes it difficult to politicize new issues in the public sphere and also makes a dominant discourse resistant to contestation. Further, given his theory, Post does not have enough normative resources to offer an account of public justification, which would expand effective political liberty.
At the Limits of Free Speech: The Conditions that Enable Islamophobic Discourse
Canadian Journal of Communications, 2022
This article revisits a 2008 complaint brought against the Canadian magazine Maclean’s for its publication of excerpts from Mark Steyn’s 2006 book America Alone, a complaint whose dismissal was seen as affirmation of the principle of freedom of speech. The authors refute this claim, invoking the moral principles that underpin free speech, interrogating the notion of an ideal speech situation and an equitable public sphere in a case that involves racism and unequal power relations, and commenting on the pressures placed upon academics and activists who seek to counter anti-Muslim discourse. This article is a co-written analysis that includes the personal recollections of one author who was involved in the case.