Free speech is a concept that can be respected in two main lights: first, an individual ought to have the ability to speak freely to insure his or her autonomy is respected, and second, an individual ought to have the ability to speak freely to insure that society has access to this speech. Presumably, the intrinsic view of free speech based in individual autonomy seem to be separate from the extrinsic view of free speech based in utility and consequences however, I maintain that though they are different, they certainly are not separate. Pertaining to free speech, autonomy and utility are, in fact, bonded together, unraveling in no certain arrangement.

An intrinsic approach to free speech is perhaps the most commonly accepted by political theorists. Many rights can be explained as having strong ground in an intrinsic view such as the right to vote, the right to contraception and abortion, freedom of religion and, of course, the right to freedom of speech and expression. Relevant to an extrinsic approach, rights consisting of freedom of press, the right to vote, the right to protest (in general and against the government), and again, freedom of speech and expression.

When free speech in protected with an emphasis to an individual’s or a group’s autonomy, mixed feelings are sure to emerge. Take for example the case of Synder v. Phelps. In this instance, members of the Westboro Baptist Church protest at the funerals of fallen soldiers with signs stating “Thank God for dead soldiers,” “You’re Going to Hell,” “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11.” Among the fallen was Snyder’s son whom he tried to bury with dignity. The church members, cunningly following the fine print of protesting at funerals, picketed the soldier’s funeral with ghastly signs. However distasteful the church members’ actions, it was an 8-1 decision granting Westboro the right to protest.

Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to side with an extrinsic view of free speech when he said, “even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” Indeed, this speech is hurtful to the family of the soldiers and to many others who may have loved ones and friends in serving the military, but it would surely create a slippery slope if the Supreme Court decided to silence this speech, for where would they draw the line?

In this particular case, it was important to show that the group’s speech deserved to be heard and as result, their autonomy and individuality were also respected. Indeed, this speech can easily be categorized as hate speech, but nevertheless, it is speech that is protected by the constitution.

It is of no surprise that more and more people are reporting that they were victims of hate speech, but the courts have been ruling against the individuals and striking down legislation intended to provide the groups accused of hate speech with protection with the aid of the First Amendment. Interestingly, many liberal theorists have argued for a more egalitarian society to end such speech that has its main subject matter wrapped in race and sex discrimination, while also supporting the courts’ decisions in protecting hate speech.
Whether the issue is if hard-core pornography should be regulated or if Nazi marches should be allowed in Skokie or if universities should tolerate hate speech, many will agree, sometimes rather reluctantly, that in matters such as these, we do have a right to be free from governmental interference and thus censorship. It is a common question amongst many why speech should be protected even when we feel most obliged to morally condemn it.

In another case, Cohen v. California, Cohen was arrested for wearing a jacket bearing the words “Fuck the Draft.” He was convicted as violating the California penal code that had prohibited maliciously and willfully disturbing the peace. In another decision that was split down the middle, the Supreme Court decided that, despite the questionable tastefulness, displaying the four-letter word is not a criminal offense. Justice Harlan famously wrote in his opinion for the court, “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.”

In his opinion, Justice Harlan said that a state cannot censor their people to attempt to make a more “civil” society. In addition, it is a product of freedom of expression and exchange that “vulgarity” is created. With passion expressed in politics, policy and the like, come unexpected and sometimes unsolicited consequences.

A case that demonstrates freedom of speech in context of extrinsic value is that of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In this particular case, the Supreme Court decided that it was against the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to set limits on funding for candidate elections. There was a dispute regarding if Citizens United could air a film called Hilary during the elections. In addition, the case also decided if the group could advertise the film on television. Unlike Snyder, this case was not overwhelmingly decided; the Justices were split down the middle, but favored Citizen’s United.

Simply, the people have the right to view this information. Especially when it comes to public elections, to censor information is to do a disfavor to society. (Though in this particular case, it is argued that the film Hilary would merely undermine the integrity of elections). It is a slippery slope, however, since if our government decided to begin to censor information pertaining to elections, politics and the government itself, we are not far off from emitting pure propaganda and repressing pure truth. Many countries lack a rule of law and are in complete ruins because their government favors censorship over the open debate in the market place of ideas. Certainly, certain speech can be extremely hurtful and can even be considered nonsensical, but if the line was drawn to stifle some form of, say, hate speech, it would be difficult to decide what speech falls on which side of that line.

A most prevalent interpretation of free speech grounded in an explicit view is J.S. Mill’s On Liberty. Mill’s position is that freedom of speech is not necessarily merely about one’s self-fulfillment, but rather about the utility and function of society. Indeed, to respect an individual’s right to freely express her opinion is valuable, all things considered; it is the consequences of society that are ultimately impacted the most.
Mill contends that in silencing just one opinion is robbing the entire human race. If the silenced opinion is right, then society is deprived of opportunity to exchange error for truth. If, on the other hand, the opinion is wrong, society will lose the benefit of a clearer perception. Underlying all this, too, is that silencing opinion assumes that we are infallible—a precarious and severely erroneous conclusion to come to.
To discover truth is the first and foremost responsibility of freedom of expression. Mill asserts that there is a worthy difference in discovering truth from contesting the opinion time and time again and discovering “truth” from censoring all other opinions and assuming it is true. And to discover this truth is no easy task. There is a pleasant falsehood, Mill says, in believing that truth will always and forever triumph over persecution. Though however contenting a thought this may be, we can see throughout history that truth does not always triumph and at best, the truth is thrown back for centuries before the truth is acknowledge and appreciated for what it really is.

The abilities of disproving or confirming the opinion through discussion are vital in discovering the truth. Whatever one’s opinion may be, he ought to be able to defend it against objections. Mill says that the truth depends on a balance to be struck between two sets of conflicting reasons. This discussion of refuting objections is vital in order to show to society why other opinions are wrong and why another opinion is correct and is the truth. In addition, until this discussion takes place, the opinion-holder cannot even be sure that his opinion is true until it is shown.

In all the cases discussed, it is easy to see both the intrinsic and extrinsic values of free speech. Though different, they are not separate. In order for society to benefit and to have access to truth, the individual must have her autonomy respected and able to express ideas freely. Because these two values are so intimately bonded, it is difficult to discern if one is more important than the other. However, I think it is simple to see that consequences are what impacts society and thus the individual. At the end of the day, truth most effects society, and so free speech in respect to an extrinsic interpretation trumps free speech in respect to an intrinsic one.

April 26th, 2011