PHI Exam 3 - Free Speech

Widely recognized as one of the most important rights in liberal democracies

freedom of speech / expression

Why is free speech important

• speech informs knowledge, convo -> thoughts (autonomy to stand up for yourself and think freely)

  • To defend yourself, make informed decisions  

• Liberal democracies and free speech: in order to govern themselves and hold people accountable 

  • (in US) extends to expression/protest/religion/association, stops only government interference NOT private/state (school, social media, etc)

Limits to freedom of speech

true threats, defamation (slander), incitement (inciting someone to commit a crime), obscenity (vague), etc. 

• Speech = words, videos, sharing

‘Bad speech’ (WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT)

speech that doesn’t pose an immediate risk of harm, but nevertheless expresses false, offensive, discriminatory, or conspiratorial messages and ideas

The Argument from Autonomy (ABOUT ‘BAD SPEECH’)

1. Preserving autonomy requires that speakers be able to freely express their ideas.

   1. Objection to premise 1: we can best preserve the autonomy of more people by restricting the speech of a few (ex. Hate groups)

2. Any restriction on speech limits the free expression of ideas. 

   1. true 

3. Therefore, any restriction on speech limits autonomy

4. Restrictions on autonomy are morally unacceptable (unless needed to prevent the violation of other people’s rights, as in prohibitions on slander and libel).

   1. plausible 
      
      

Conclusion: Therefore, any restriction on speech is morally unacceptable (unless needed to prevent the violation of other people’s rights, as in prohibitions on slander and libel)

The Argument from Democracy (ABOUT BAD SPEECH)

1. If unrestricted free speech supports democratic decision-making, then restrictions on speech are morally unacceptable.

   1. Premise 1: requires showing that the value of democratic decision-making is more important than the values that are threatened by bad speech. 

2. Unrestricted free speech supports democratic decision-making.

   1. Objection to Premise 2: not all kinds of speech support democratic decision-making (e.g. fake news)

3. Therefore, restrictions on speech are morally unacceptable. 

The No Harm Argument (ABOUT BAD SPEECH)

1. It is morally acceptable to restrict speech only if such speech threatens harm to someone.  

   1. plausible 

2. Bad speech does not threaten harm to anyone. 

   1. on a plausible definition of harm as conduct that wrongfully sets back someone’s important interests, bad speech can harm people 

3. Therefore, it is not morally acceptable to restrict bad speech.

No harm argument discussion

• According to the "No harm" argument, speech should be restricted only to prevent harm, but how can the harm of words be defined? Different cultures and religions allow different types of speech and restrict others. In some households it is perfectly acceptable to use curse words while in others it is not. In whose opinion do words do harm, to the person saying them or the one hearing them?

This reminds me of the golden rule which states to do unto others as you would have them do unto you

The Knowledge Argument (ABOUT BAD SPEECH)

1. If restrictions on speech hinder the pursuit of knowledge, then they are morally unacceptable.

   1. Does the pursuit of knowledge give a decisive reason against restricting speech? 

2. Restrictions on speech hinder the pursuit of knowledge.

   1. Do speech restrictions always hinder the pursuit of knowledge? The marketplace of ideas doesn’t always allow truths to emerge effectively. 
      
      

1. Therefore, restrictions on speech are morally unacceptable. 

J.S. Mill, ”On the liberty of thought and discussion” 

Moral / political theorist, jurist (Mill = more speech)

• Personal liberty, defense of unrestricted speech

• Silencing any neg opinions harms our generation or the further one, harms the people against free speech the most

  • Mill argues we should be free to speak our mind—so long as doing so does not harm others.

  • Being exposed to false beliefs, propaganda, or even offensive beliefs does not by itself constitute any harm.

The best response to false or offensive speech is more speech (and more thought)

(knowledge argument) Mill’s first reason: all silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility

But no one is infallible. The silenced opinion may be true. Thus, the way to gain knowledge is through hearing and discussing all that people have to say

Mill’s second reason: the silenced opinion may contain a portion of truth 

The prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth. Allowing adverse opinions makes it possible that the remainder of the truth will be discovered

Mill’s third reason: even if we are certain that a belief is false, it is beneficial to discuss it

1. Discovering why a false opinion is false allows us to better understand the subject matter at hand. 

2. Subjecting our true beliefs to challenges allows us to better justify and defend them

The best way to solidify our knowledge is to be open to debate

“The beliefs which we have most warrant (most justified in knowing) for, have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded.” - Mill

Mill’s fourth reason: censorship would undermine our relationship to truth

Without debate, we are in danger of becoming dogmatic (hold a view and am unwilling to ask if that view could be false) & may lose contact with the rational grounds for our beliefs 

The Inefficiency Argument (ABOUT BAD SPEECH)

1. Restrictions on bad speech are morally justifiable only if they are the most efficient (i.e. least costly and most likely to succeed) means of reducing its negative results. 

   1. supported by consequentialism

2. Restrictions on bad speech are NOT the most efficient means of reducing its negative results.

   1. rather than restrictions, counter-speech should be used to combat bad speech 

3. Therefore, restrictions on speech are morally unacceptable 

The Slippery Slope Argument (ABOUT BAD SPEECH)

1. If restrictions on free speech would eventually lead to disastrous results, then restrictions on free speech should not be implemented. 

   1. plausible 

2. Restrictions on free speech would eventually lead to disastrous results. 

   1. hard to know if the prediction is plausible. 

3. Therefore, restrictions on free speech should not be implemented. 

The Social Harm Argument (ABOUT BAD SPEECH)

1. If a law greatly reduces social harm and does not violate anyone’s moral rights, then the law is morally justified.

   1. plausible  

2.  Laws restricting bad speech greatly reduce social harm and do not violate anyone’s moral rights.

   1. hinges on empirical facts about the effects of restrictions on speech. Such facts are contested, and may vary depending on the nature of the restriction as well as the social context in which it is implemented 

3.  Laws restricting bad speech are morally justified

The Argument from Dignity (ABOUT BAD SPEECH)

1. Dignity is a human right. 

   1. plausible, though the notion of dignity is a bit diffuse 

2. Violations of human rights should be prohibited. 

   1. plausible 

3. Therefore, if hate speech violates people’s dignity, then it should be prohibited. 

4. Hate speech violates people’s dignity. 

   1. Objection to premise 4: the effects of hate speech may be exaggerated. 

5. Therefore, hate speech should be banned. 

The Argument from Legal Moralism (ABOUT BAD SPEECH)

1. If expressing bad speech is morally wrong, then it should be restricted. 

2. Expressing bad speech is morally wrong. 

   1. plausible 

   2. Objection to premise 2: there are things that are wrong to do, but nevertheless may not be legally prohibited. 

3. Therefore, bad speech should be restricted. 

Emerick (rich w/ thought)

The Value of Freedom of Thought and Expression

1. Social value

2. Personal value

Social value (Emerick)

“All else equal, the best way to promote a flourishing epistemic community is to enable free thought and the expression of that thought, which is generally instrumentally valuable for everyone.”

Personal value (Emerick)

“to prevent someone from expressing themself across the board is one method of undermining them as a knower, thwarting their self fulfillment, and diminishing their personhood.”

Hate speech does cause harm (Emerick)

wrongfully sets back people’s important interests

• Harm to reputation or social status

• Moral offense

• Stereotypes 

• Epistemic injustice (wrong done to someone specifically in their capacity as a knower)

Why the Right To Free Expression Is Not Unlimited (Emerick)

• Unlimited freedom would enable exclusionary harms

  • These exclusionary harms would undermine the personal value of free expression for those who suffer the harms

  • The social value would be undermined since the epistemic community would be made less diverse

Kay Mathiesen (“uhmm Kay’ - that’s a lie”)

Fake News and the Limits of Free Speech 

Three Distinctive Features of Fake News (Kay Mathiesen)

1. Designed to fool people into thinking the source is a legitimate news source. 

2. Created with no concern for truthfulness 

3. Designed to be as viral as possible, exploiting online social networks 

False news advantage (Kay Mathiesen)

Advantage - Anchoring effect: 1st thing you see sticks, other info / rebuttals reinforce the first piece of info

Disadvantage - is false yo

Fire house of propaganda (False News)

flood with BS, people disengage due to the abundance of info (overwhelm senses) 

• More is not nec. better 

  • How do we ensure people have the info to act autonomously while also giving people the right to say what they want to say even if it is false or harmful?

Objection to placing restrictions on fake news (Kay Mathiesen)

distrust of govt to regulate true vs. fake, someone would always have to hold all the cards and know it’s true vs. false which is unrealistic. Morally could trample over the opinion of someone (author, editor)

Does Censoring Fake News Violate Autonomy? (Kay Mathiesen)

• Speech is important to the development and exercise of autonomy: it allows speakers to know their own minds and express their ways of life. 
  
  

• But creating and disseminating fake news doesn’t relate to autonomy in the aforementioned ways. On the other hand, it undermines the receiver’s autonomy through deception.

Individual autonomy

capacity to live one’s life according to one’s own reasons and motives, rather than manipulative or distorting external forces. 

Does Censoring Fake News Violate Utilitarian Principles? (Kay Mathiesen)

• Mill’s Harm Principle: The only reason it is permissible to interfere with someone else’s liberty is to prevent harm to others

• Mill on free speech: Speech is essential to how we learn and spread information (the Knowledge Argument). 

• Upshot: Mill’s ideas do NOT provide reasons against censoring fake news b/c fake news does arguably create harm of various sorts & undermines genuine debate.

Does Censoring Fake News Undermine Democracy? (Kay Mathiesen)

• Fake news neither provides a voice for people who wish to contribute to the debate (since the producers do not actually believe it), nor does it provide a source of information for decision-making (since it is false), nor does it provide an opportunity for discussion of important values (since it is typically presented as factual and it distracts from genuine questions of discussion) 

  • Free speech is necessary for informed collective decision-making in a democracy.

Bhikhu Parekh (booo people)

Is there a Case for banning Hate Speech?

Three Distinctive Features of Hate Speech (Bhikhu Parekh)

1. It is directed against an individual or a group based on an arbitrary and normatively irrelevant feature

2. It stigmatizes the target by ascribing to it qualities widely regarded as undesirable

3. It encourages and purports to justify discrimination. 

Why Hate Speech Is Unacceptable? (Bhikhu Parekh)

• It undermines public debate, the community’s moral sensibility, and the culture of mutual respect

• It violates the target’s dignity

• It prevents the target group from living autonomous and fulfilling lives

  • In the long term, it threatens the safety of the target group

The Case for Banning Hate Speech (Bhikhu Parekh)

• Direct prohibition could reduce or eliminate hate speech.

• Prohibition sends the message that the state is committed to protecting citizens’ fundamental interests equally. 

• Prohibition could help prevent political mobilization or hostility against particular groups.

Objections to banning hate speech (Bhikhu Parekh)

• Allowing hate speech is a small price to pay in the larger interest of a free democracy. 

• Evil ideas are best defeated not through bans, but critical scrutiny. 

• Prohibition would lead us down a slippery slope. 

• Prohibition would allow the state to judge the content of speech. 

• Citizens should be trusted to see through hate speech as responsible and autonomous individuals. 

• Practical objections

Huemer

When to Suppress Speech?

• Should Private Agents Suppress Speech to Prevent Psychological or Political Harm?

Psychological harm (Huemer)

There is no evidence of serious psychological harm resulting from hearing positions ideologically opposite to the listener’s own views, nor from hearing incautious word choices. 

1. Slander against the group which you belong

2. Siding w/ Mill, (some) words can’t in themselves harm you

Political harm (Huemer)

Humans can often be misled by lies about matters of objective fact. There might be a case for restricting some instances of deceptive speech 

1. Can be misled, it is more permissible to restrictive speech, Mill believes in counter speech

Potential Consequences of Suppressing Speech (Huemer)

(can have opposite effect of what you intend)

1. Entrenching mistaken views and protecting them from criticism 

2. Driving people of different political orientations into separate ideological bubbles 

3. Corrupting our intellectual discourse, as rational argument is replaced by threats and social pressure as tools for responding to opponents

4. Unintentionally suppressing discussion of ideas that are related to the central ideas that one means to suppress 

5. Weakening the fundamental basis for liberal order: the ability to address our differences through dialogue 

Huemer’s Proposal

• Limited private censorship

“The weight of reasons supports suppressing speech that transmits lies about matters of objective fact but does not support the suppression of sincere opinions, however misguided.”

• Lies: assertions that the speaker does not believe to be true (should NOT be protected) 

  • ONLY ban lies (intentional false speech) NOT earnest speech