Civil Liberties
Article 14 Freedom of Speech (Part I)
Rationales for free speech (Barendt)
1. Process of discussion and argument (marketplace of ideas) as a means of discovering “truth”
Mill’s argument from truth: If restrictions of speech are tolerated, society may prevent the ascertainment and publication of true facts and accurate judgments. This approach, associated with the famous judgment of Holmes J in Abrams v US 250 US 616 (1919) asserts that all truths are relative and they can only be judged ‘in the competition of the market’.
Criticisms?
Argument assumes that in all circumstances (short of an imminent emergency) the publication of a possibly true statement is the highest public good. But there are many situations where legal systems may prefer to protect other values e.g. it is conceivably true that some races are intellectually superior to others but a society is entitled to take the view that racial harmony is such an important goal that absolute tolerance of free speech is too great a luxury.
How relevant is this argument to the publication of government secrets or confidential commercial information?
Some regulation of the free speech marketplace must surely be conceded, if any expression is to be communicated effectively.
Mill’s truth argument applies most clearly to speech stating beliefs and theories about political, moral, aesthetic, and social matters.
2. Communication of ideas – self-actualisation via self-expression
Free speech as an integral aspect of each individual’s right to self-development and fulfilment. Restrictions on expression will inhibit the growth of personality (by formulating their own beliefs and political attitudes through public discussions). This argument asserts individual right to free speech even if it is inimical to welfare and development of society. It treats speech as a special value apart from other liberties.
Criticisms?
It is far from clear that unlimited free speech is necessarily conducive to personal
Rationales for free speech (Barendt)
1. Process of discussion and argument (marketplace of ideas) as a means of discovering “truth”
Mill’s argument from truth: If restrictions of speech are tolerated, society may prevent the ascertainment and publication of true facts and accurate judgments. This approach, associated with the famous judgment of Holmes J in Abrams v US 250 US 616 (1919) asserts that all truths are relative and they can only be judged ‘in the competition of the market’.
Criticisms?
Argument assumes that in all circumstances (short of an imminent emergency) the publication of a possibly true statement is the highest public good. But there are many situations where legal systems may prefer to protect other values e.g. it is conceivably true that some races are intellectually superior to others but a society is entitled to take the view that racial harmony is such an important goal that absolute tolerance of free speech is too great a luxury.
How relevant is this argument to the publication of government secrets or confidential commercial information?
Some regulation of the free speech marketplace must surely be conceded, if any expression is to be communicated effectively.
Mill’s truth argument applies most clearly to speech stating beliefs and theories about political, moral, aesthetic, and social matters.
2. Communication of ideas – self-actualisation via self-expression
Free speech as an integral aspect of each individual’s right to self-development and fulfilment. Restrictions on expression will inhibit the growth of personality (by formulating their own beliefs and political attitudes through public discussions). This argument asserts individual right to free speech even if it is inimical to welfare and development of society. It treats speech as a special value apart from other liberties.
Criticisms?
It is far from clear that unlimited free speech is necessarily conducive to personal