The Ethics of Free Speech

Foreign [Music] Hey, it's Professor Grabowski, and in this lecture I will address a topic that's a major issue in media ethics and, moreover, a major issue in America today. I'll be discussing free speech. To clarify, when we talk about speech, we don't just mean spoken words. We mean all types of expression, including newspaper articles, films, artwork, photos, social media posts, lectures like this one, discussions at cafes and bars, and much, much more. Basically, any way in which we communicate and express ideas.

At the core of the Free Speech dilemma is this: what sort of speech should be permitted, and should there be any limits on that speech? Of course, as a student in an American University, you've surely learned about the First Amendment. The First Amendment is basically a promise by the United States government to respect the individual rights of its people, particularly expression in all its forms. But it's important to understand that the First Amendment is not the same exact thing as free speech. Often, people mis-equate these two things. The First Amendment differs from the concept of free speech since it only defines the limitations on the government in restricting speech. The concept of free speech is broader than the Constitutional provision. Many people consider Free Speech a basic human right, and in America, freedom of speech is often threatened by actors other than the government. There are many ways that the concept of free speech can be violated and that censorship can occur that does not involve the government. It's important to remember that the First Amendment only prevents the United States government from restricting speech. So if a social media platform censors content or suspends a user, they have not violated the First Amendment; however, they have arguably violated the principle of free speech. Free Speech existed before the First Amendment, and it exists outside of it. Freedom of speech is a much bigger, bolder, and braver idea than the First Amendment.

Similarly, if a newspaper decides not to allow readers to make comments on articles on their website, they have not violated the First Amendment, but such action is certainly not free speech friendly. Thus, when considering the issue of free speech in the context of media ethics, it's important to not get hung up on the legalistic perspective, which is something Americans have a tendency to do. Just because an action does not violate the First Amendment does not mean it's ethical. As I discussed in my first lecture in this course, ethics is not a matter of simply following the law. A good legal system incorporates ethical standards, but laws can deviate from what is ethical. So when a social media company decides to de-platform a user for posting a controversial opinion about COVID-19 or some other political matter, as they have done in many cases, they absolutely have a legal right to do that. Or if the same social media platform decides to allow the controversial post, they also have a legal right to do that. Legally, these platforms can allow or restrict as much speech as they want with very few government restrictions. But defending their choice to censor or allow speech by simply saying that it's a private company and they can do what they want is not an ethical argument. You're simply stating the law. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, and just because you're not required to do something doesn't mean you should refrain from doing it.

So, as media practitioners, we need to avoid that legalistic mindset. Of course, we always need to be mindful about the laws so we don't break them and get in trouble and have to pay heavy fines or even go to jail. But here's the thing: the laws we have in America governing Free Speech give the media tremendous freedom. As a result, media, including journalists and social media platforms, have become the gatekeepers for deciding what views the public sees and what ordinary Americans can say online. So what speech should they share and allow? Speech, as I mentioned, encapsulates many different activities, including speaking, writing, singing, acting, burning flags, yelling on the street corner, advertising, threats, slander, and so on. No society has existed where speech has not been limited to at least some extent. Every society places some limits on the exercise of speech because it always takes place within a context of competing values. Almost everyone agrees that there should be at least some limits to free speech. Very few people are free speech absolutists. For example, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who will argue that child pornography or death threats should be protected speech. But those are extreme examples. There are many types of speech that fall in between speech that is obviously objectionable and speech that is obviously permissible. And on a daily basis, journalists and social media platforms have to decide whether to expose the public to that controversial speech or to censor it. They must weigh the relative importance of competing ethical principles, such as telling the truth or avoiding offending and harming people, or they may have to decide between providing information that will help the public make decisions or respecting an individual's right to privacy.

The issue of where do we draw the line on Free Speech has been going on since time immemorial, but it's become even more contentious in modern times with the internet, which allows for anyone to instantly share their views with the world, and that speech can be memorialized forever because people take screenshots, and the internet does not forget. But even before the internet was invented, there was a long-running conflict between two schools of thought on the issue of freedom of speech. Most of the major moral philosophers, both past and present, fall into one of two camps: they are either libertarians or they are communitarians. Our textbook goes into detail on these two philosophies and their thought leaders, so you should read up on that, but I will summarize it in this lecture.

First, there is the Liberty Theory, which has greatly influenced America's approach to integrating Free Speech into its social contract. This philosophy was espoused by famous thinkers such as John Milton, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Henry David Thoreau. The Liberty Theory holds that free speech is essential for furthering four values. The first value is individual self-fulfillment. Many Western philosophers believe that Free Speech helps maximize our self-growth and makes us more fulfilled and happier. In a sense, this belief is Kantian in nature, with its focus on the autonomy of both the speaker and the listener. Philosopher Immanuel Kant emphasized respecting the dignity of individuals, and when you restrict what they can think and say, you're not respecting a person's dignity, he argued. On another level, this value is Aristotelian in that it sees speech worthy of protection because it furthers self-fulfillment and provides for a stable culture and community. This value also feeds into philosopher John Locke's view on the social contract. We covered Locke earlier in the course; you'll recall that Locke championed the rights of individuals over the power of the government and, by doing so, presented the founders of the United States with a fully developed concept of government as the agent of the people. His ideas are reflected in America's Declaration of Independence when Americans declared they refused to be ruled by the King of England. One of the triumphs of the libertarian view of free speech is that it gives protection to the individual as well as the group. A key interpretation of the Free Speech Doctrine embodied in the First Amendment is that no voice can be silenced, not even the faintest. So libertarian theory is very individualistic and focused on protecting the rights of the individual. This theory has also helped shape modern American journalism. Under the Liberty Theory, journalists have the right to publish what they want, and they're not answerable to anyone except themselves for what they publish. One of the most adamant defenders of individual rights over group rights was British philosopher John Stuart Mill, whom you have also read about. He provided support to this theory in his 1859 essay On Liberty. It is perhaps the most famous defense of free speech. Mill firmly asserted that no individual voice should be silenced, especially by the din of the majority. He said that if all of mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Mill was concerned with the dangers of operating from a greater good perspective without consideration of minority opinion. This historical emphasis on the individual has, in part, grown from an Enlightenment period of distrust of government, especially totalitarian regimes, and a firmly held belief in a social contract construct that gives the individual power over the group.

Keep in mind, it's not popular speech that needs protection since so many people agree with such speech; it's not threatened. In fact, if everyone agreed on the same issue, there would be no need for free speech, and there wouldn't be any debates that cause controversy. So it's unpopular speech that needs protection, and if we don't protect unpopular, dissident views, we could face what philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville called a tyranny of the majority, which is a situation where the more powerful group is able to impose its will on the less privileged minority groups. That's why philosopher John Rawls was a proponent of the Liberty theory. He believed a truly just Society cannot exist when the well-being of the community comes at the cost of individual rights. And in America, thanks to our embrace of the Liberty Theory, marginalized individuals and groups have been able to achieve progress because they've been free to express their concerns. Of course, this also means those groups have been subjected to hate speech. So allowing Free Speech comes with benefits and drawbacks. Truly supporting Free Speech means supporting the rights of others to express bad and offensive ideas. That's easier said than done. Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly say they support free speech, but it turns out they really don't when you ask them about specific issues. For example, do they think it should be legal to burn the U.S. flag? Or do they think Donald Trump should be banned from social media? Or do they think adult pornography should be censored? Do they think athletes should have to stand for the national anthem? Supporting Free Speech doesn't mean you have to agree with such controversial speech as those examples, but it does require tolerance of that speech. As the French philosopher known as Voltaire's credited with saying, "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it."

So Libertarians recognize and even embrace the politics of conflict and the clash of self-interests. As a counter to this argument, some people will say, "Well, you have the freedom to say what you want, but not from the consequences of your speech." But when the consequence of having a different political opinion is de-platforming from social media platforms, which have become the modern-day Public Square, or when it's expulsion from school, or when it's getting fired from your job, that's not really Freedom at all. As Mark Twain once quipped, "As an active privilege, Free Speech ranks with the privilege of committing murder. We may exercise it if we're willing to take the consequences," which is to say freedom of speech can exist in the kind of cancel culture environment we presently see in America. Cancel culture is another example of a phenomenon that does not violate the First Amendment yet contravenes the broader concept of free speech.

The second value of free speech is advancement of knowledge and discovery of Truth. This value of free speech recognizes that the search for truth requires that we be able to discuss and investigate all ideas. It is a precondition of Truth-seeking that we can discuss any idea in order to determine if that idea is any good. That means allowing the discussion and defense of ideas that we might view as evil, wrong, offensive, or sinful. It means that it isn't only the government censorship that we're worried about; what we want is a vibrant Marketplace of ideas where we can subject any and every idea to things such as debate, discussion, satire, and rigorous analysis with the goal of finding out which ideas are true, good, right, correct, useful, etc. So in this sense, speech isn't just about personal freedom but rather the search for the truth. John Stuart Mill famously argued that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse. Not only did Mill welcome all speech, he believed people should actively seek out viewpoints they disagree with. He reasoned that very few people really know what they think because most people have never thrown themselves into the mental position of those who think differently from them. Studies show that Viewpoint diversity spurs Innovation at companies and universities. Most great discoveries and achievements come not through one-person soul genius but through collaboration with others. Discussion leads to innovation.

Now you might be thinking, "Well, of course, certain discussion can lead to Innovation and Discovery, but we wouldn't ban that kind of speech; we would only ban harmful speech." Well, aside from the subjectivity of what "harmful" actually means, there is another problem best illustrated by an example. Galileo, sometimes called the father of modern physics, was a proponent of heliocentrism, the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The religious leaders of the day disagreed with this Theory; they thought it was heresy and therefore harmful speech. In 1616, the Inquisition of the Catholic Church brought charges against Galileo; they essentially forced him to publicly recant this belief, although he still held it privately. Science and, by extension, progress was held back because it didn't meet the speech standards of the day. This is one of the reasons why thinkers like Mill, Locke, and others fought for individual autonomy in society. As Galileo demonstrates, just because everyone believes something doesn't mean it's true; that one dissenting voice might just contain the real truth while the rest of us are wrong. But if we put a finger on the scale of the marketplace of ideas and refused to allow criticism of certain ideas or refuse to allow expression of certain ideas, then we are short-circuiting the mechanism through which we educate the truth and competing ideas.

The third major value provided by free speech is participation in decision-making by all members of the society, which is to say free speech is important for democracy. Philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn was among those who believe that free speech is necessary for sustaining democracy. Defending speech on Democratic grounds has many parts. One is a claim that the public needs a great deal of information in order to make informed decisions. Another is that because government is the servant of the people, it should not be allowed to censor them. Such arguments show that one of the main reasons for justifying Free Speech, especially political speech, is important not for its own sake but because it allows us to exercise another important value, which is democracy. Related to this value is the fourth value, which is the achievement of a more adaptable and hence stable community. The rationale is that fostering an environment that's accepting of a wide range of viewpoints is essential to Liberty and democracy, especially as the United States grows more diverse and pluralistic. It's what English poet John Milton called a Marketplace of ideas. As you learned in this week's readings, legal scholar Thomas Emerson expanded on this value when he argued that freedom of speech helps to provide a balance between stability and change. Freedom of speech acts as a safety valve to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on Revolution.

As a result of these values, the Liberty Theory permits a great amount of controversial, offensive, and harmful speech. It would only restrict speech in very rare, extreme circumstances, such as child pornography and death threats. Under this Theory, any harms caused by speech are generally allowed because speech does not, in most cases, physically harm people. Nobody has ever been rushed to the hospital because of words; rather, people are potentially harmed only to the extent that they adopt any perceptions or attitudes because of the speech. In other words, the harm-causing speech does not itself interfere with the listener's legitimate decision-making authority or the autonomy of the listener. You don't have to read or listen to the speech, and if you do, you don't have to change your mind about anything. The Listener has no right, then, to control that speech since that would be disrespectful of the speaker's autonomy. So outlawing speech in order to protect people from harms that result simply because listeners might adopt certain perceptions or attitudes disrespects the responsibility and freedom of the listener as well as the speaker.

Directly opposite to the libertarian approach is the communitarian perspective. It emphasizes the importance of community over the individual in the functioning of society. In contrast to most of the philosophies we have studied in our course, the communitarian Viewpoint is rooted in Eastern culture and great thinkers such as Confucius, who was a Chinese philosopher and politician. The ancient Greek philosopher Plato also espoused a communitarian perspective, and we can find this concept in some of the Bible's teachings as well. Although the communitarian philosophy has ancient Roots, it has gained currency in modern times. For example, Karl Marx expressed communitarian ideas in his Communist Manifesto. More recently, former U.S. presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton also campaigned on communitarian ideas. Communitarians believe that it's dangerous to place too much emphasis on the individual. Scottish philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, for instance, has decried the cult of individuality as treating human beings as free-will addicts with no relationship to society as a whole. This, he says, is a mistake. We are all born into society and learn to live within its shelter, developing as part of the whole. In this way, we are not, as a Libertarian supposes, disconnected entities living wholly for ourselves. Likewise, Harvard political philosophy Professor Michael Sandel argues that human beings simply cannot be considered as separate from their social communities. Communitarians disagree that rule by reason alone is sufficient to ensure Community Health. They believe it's necessary to take into account the social goals of the community as exemplified through its cultural traditions and roles. Communitarians hold that the community's tradition and one's place within that tradition are vital to the operation of a successful Society. In addition, trust only in reason is to divorce oneself from the reality that human beings are simultaneously thinking and feeling creatures. In fact, Confucius didn't even recognize a separate state of reasoning absent emotion. Communitarians believe that the government's primary role is to ensure the welfare of the community because it is the basis of all human interaction. They believe that we cannot be simply individuals pursuing our self-interests without regard for this Society of which we are an integral part. Under this Theory, journalists are responsible to the community of which they are apart. As discussed in our textbook, the trend toward public journalism is a reflection of this increasing concern for the place of the press in fostering Community well-being. Under communitarianism, the traditions of culture and Society are vital to the realization of the good life, and we cannot separate ourselves from that whole of which we are apart. In fact, our very roles within that Society tie us to the community in ways we could not be joined as mere individuals. We are what we are in part because of our roles in society. So communitarians would favor restricting individual rights in favor of doing what is best for society as a whole. So this is a bit of a utilitarian approach. The US government arguably adopted a communitarian approach when it came to dealing with COVID. In order to protect the overall health of the country, the government imposed certain rules and restrictions, such as lockdowns, face masks, and mandatory vaccines, that some Americans felt infringed on their individual rights. Of course, the public debate over how to deal with COVID-19 was a bit more complicated than that, but it did illustrate some of the conflicts between the liberty and communitarian approaches.

An example of communitarian theory in free speech can be seen in the modern Chinese government regime. The Chinese Communist Party censors its citizens from accessing certain online content that the government sees as harming national interests, harming ethnic Unity, subverting State Authority, and so on. This censorship is commonly referred to as the Great Firewall, which is a word play on China's Great Wall. While this approach provides many benefits for China's Community, such as reducing political conflict, improving social cohesion, and benefiting native social platforms' growth, it arguably comes at a cost to individual rights and progress. Those who criticize the government may be imprisoned, which many people in the U.S. and Europe consider a human rights violation. China's approach may also hinder the Innovation and creativity of Chinese entrepreneurs because they may be unable to learn about the latest trends and discuss ideas with their Western counterparts. And now the same phenomenon is starting to occur in the United States as big Tech platforms are beginning to censor content they don't agree with or don't want people to see. And when others have tried to create alternate platforms that allow for more free speech, big Tech has colluded to prevent users from downloading their apps. Even worse, the US government is pushing for these speech restrictions in some cases. Big Tech and politicians claim that the censorship is necessary to prevent misinformation and to preserve democracy. And to be clear, misinformation is a big problem online and sometimes has a very negative consequence in real life that seriously harms people. Contrary to what Libertarians may argue, sometimes the best ideas do not win out in the marketplace of ideas. For example, Facebook's failure to moderate misinformation on its platform allegedly contributed to a military coup and genocide in Myanmar. In America, parents of children who were killed in the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre were harassed for years due to conspiracy theories that circulated online and were promoted by far-right podcaster Alex Jones. I think we can all agree that lies can be dangerous and harmful, but you should also be aware that the term misinformation is sometimes misused and abused for political reasons, and in some significant cases, truthful information has been labeled misinformation and censored in the United States because it was politically inconvenient for the people in power. An example of this could be seen in the way that most of the mainstream media outlets and social media platforms suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop controversy story in 2020. The Scandal was initially dismissed as Russian disinformation, widely ignored by Major media outlets and censored by social media platforms, but 17 months later, the New York Times finally conceded that the story was real, and Mark Zuckerberg admitted it was a mistake for Facebook to initially censor it. According to multiple polls, voters may have voted differently had they known the story was accurate. While it's always prudent for journalists to verify facts and avoid reporting unverified rumors, many media Outlets did not follow that same standard of care when it came to covering alleged scandals involving the Trump Administration, some of which turned out to be completely false. This apparent double standard has led to accusations that the media and big Tech have political bias against conservatives. That said, I should also note that conservatives at times have supported speech restrictions. Recently, for example, some conservative lawmakers have pushed for restricting what teachers in public elementary schools can discuss about race and LGBTQ issues because they contend it's harmful indoctrination of children. But critics argue that such restrictions violate teachers' academic freedom and even civil rights.

One of the dangers of communitarianism is it can lead to authoritarianism, and the controlling political party gets to decide what are the community's values while pressing others' rights. We've seen examples of this on both sides of the political Spectrum in the United States. So as media practitioners who play a role in deciding what information the public knows, our challenge is to find a balance between these two very different approaches to speech, which both have benefits and drawbacks. It is probably unwise to allow all expression free reign. Sometimes we may need to restrict speech to prevent harm to fellow human beings. Child pornography law is a test to our desire to protect our children. Death threats are also punishable by law. In some cases, we may decide to limit speech for other reasons as well, such as protecting an individual's privacy or protecting National Security. We also tend to recognize the inappropriateness of some forms of speech at certain times and places. For example, our education system doesn't work if we allow students to jump up in the middle of class and cause disruptions. On the other hand, John Stuart Mill was probably right when he insisted that no individual voice should be silenced by a tyrannous majority, and as John Milton pointed out, that one voice might just contain the real truth while the rest of us are wrong. So the trick is to balance a commitment to free expression with a fair amount of respect for others. Some speech Advocates will argue that any restriction of free speech can create a slippery slope which will lead to even more censorship and tyranny. It is worth noting, however, that the slippery slope argument can be used to make the opposite point. One could argue that we should not allow any removal of government interventions on speech or any other type of freedom because once we do, we're on a slippery slope to Anarchy, the state of nature, and a life that Hobbes described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." So it's not necessarily an either/or decision between Liberty and community; rather, it's about finding balance between the two, or what Aristotle called the golden mean. We need to decide how much value we place on speech in relation to other important ideals, such as...

Privacy, security, democratic equality, and the prevention of harm—and there is nothing inherent to speech that suggests it must always win out in competition with these values. It's part of the package deal of social goods.

Well, this has been Professor Grabowski, and that concludes my lecture on the ethics of free speech. Thanks for watching. [Music] foreign [Music]