Free speech is essential for moving closer to the truth of things. That’s enough for me, but I’ll add that free speech is also useful for problem-solving, good governance, and democracy. Apparently, that’s not enough for some people. It’s not so much that these folks have fully articulated arguments for limiting the right to speech. It’s more that they have ways of thinking that minimize its value and justify restricting speech. Here are a few examples:
Essentializing: reducing a person to some fundamental and invariable quality or behavioral tendency. Example: "Public figure ‘X’ is a sexual predator". Why should These People (predators, corporate profiteers, racists, privileged while males, etc.) have the right to free speech?
Mindreading: assuming one knows someone else’s thoughts, feelings and motivations – that is, the “real” reasons for what they say, think and do. Example: “It All Comes Down to Race: Your opinions on health care reform, taxes, and even the president’s dog …” If speech is just the superficial gloss over true intentions, why should it be elevated to a right?
Speech Causes Emotional Suffering: being kind and considerate is usually a good thing. As a rule, we shouldn’t trample on other people’s feelings. If pushing someone in a bar fight counts as criminal assault, shouldn’t some forms of verbal assault, such a hate speech, be likewise illegal? The resulting pain may very well be deeper and last longer than a little bruise.
Cultural Relativism: what began as a useful heuristic for anthropologists “to understand other cultures, you have to suspend judgment” has morphed into the widespread moral imperative, “we should not judge other cultures according to Western values”. Free speech is just another Western value; it shouldn’t be elevated to a sacred right.
Psychological Reductionism: this is the attitude that political sensibilities, principles and opinions boil down to personality traits, psychological motivations, and emotional biases, e.g., conservatives are just scared and risk-averse, Democrats are open-minded and compassionate and poor whites who vote Republican are motivated by a perverse need to justify the system that oppresses them. Since attitudes and opinions reflect psychological needs and biases, appeals to reason and evidence are unlikely to change minds.
The Primacy of Emotion Over Reason: whereas psychological reductionism is about individuals, the primacy of emotion over reason is about human nature, namely that subconscious intuitions, attractions, repulsions, impulses, and motives basically call the shots in our species. Conscious thought, with its narratives and reasons, mostly does the bidding of feeling.
Powerful Interests Use Speech to Manipulate the Gullible: through their control of traditional and social media, the wealthy and powerful bombard the public with political ads, false narratives, and fake news. If the purpose of free speech is to protect and nourish democracy, this onslaught of misleading and manipulating messaging needs to be curbed.
There should not be a Right to Mislead or Lie: candidates or groups shouldn’t be able to say whatever they want about an opponent, issue, or themselves and have it protected as a form of free speech. Prohibiting misleading statements and lies would make for a better-informed citizenry and a stronger democracy.
It’s not that I disagree with everything on this list. Some statements are accurate or at least make legitimate points. Humans are emotional creatures. The public can be gullible. Not all speech aims to enlighten. Some people are bad. None of that matters, though, because what we gain from free speech greatly exceeds what we lose by curbing speech.
Next: What do we gain from free speech?
.