Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech

Issues touching on free speech are the most contentious in the contemporary liberal world.  The contention arises from the conflict on whether there is value on the freedom of speech. In cases where freedom of speech is not highly valued, then there is no conflict. However, in cases where the freedom of speech is highly valued, then controversies arise on the grounds of the limitations that arise from the limitations that are placed on the freedom of speech. Noting that there are limitations placed on the freedom of speech, it befits to state as Stanley Fish did, that there is no such thing as freedom of speech (Shiffrin, 2014).  This discourse shall seek to address the university’s policy concerning free speech. It will also present the arguments that are present for the promotion, preservation, and limitation of free speech.  Lastly, it will name the critical values of the university and describe how a particular policy will uphold these values. In satisfying these values, this paper shall seek to prove that there is no freedom of speech in an unlimited sense.

Communities are social constructs of diverse people with different opinions. Mill, posited, in his great defenses to liberal speech, that there should be the fullest liberty of professing and discussing any doctrine regardless of how immoral it may be considered on the grounds of ethical convictions. According to this position, Mill postulates that freedom of speech allows expressions that extend to the logical limits and are not capped by social embarrassments. However, it is prudent to note that in the proposition of this stance, Mill also pointed out that any society with freedom of speech requires rules to govern the community and which is hinged on the harm principle (Mill, 2016). This is a principle that posits that harm to others should be prevented.  Laying this foundation will require us to point out what speech could likely cause harm or offense to others. Speech offending the race of a person, the gender of another, or the religious subscription of another is harmful speech and, therefore, should be limited in support of the fact that there is no free speech.

An argument has incessantly been ongoing on the morality of pornography and its relationship to the harm principle. The debate was skewed towards the position that pornography is immoral. However, with the increased modern-day feminism, the debate has been contested because there is erotica, which is acceptable and pornography, which is not. The proponents of erotica, for example, Catherine Mackinnon (1987) who took the distinction between erotica and pornography seriously, should be careful in their proposition as pornography has been cited to be harmful to women through the way it portrays them and the fact that it induces violence in men against women. The fictional story of The Cat Person may be erotica to someone but could pass for pornography to others by virtue of the trauma that the lady felt after the sexual encounter (Roupenian, 2019).  If this is the case, then a question arises from people who consider both erotica and pornography as the same, and they support the case that action of movies does not induce violence in children. These conflicting opinions, therefore, put a gag on each party to protect the other party against harm and, as such, noting that their speech becomes limited to the extent that their opinion does not harm the conflicting party.

The United States federal laws do not have a clause criminalizing hate speech. This is so because the courts have ruled that criminalizing hate speech is in violation of the freedom of speech guarantee contained in the First Amendment. This can be taken to mean that all type of speech is allowed in the United States by virtue of the First Amendment.  Does this, therefore, mean that all speech is allowed in the United States? The Supreme Court has provided a precedent that the United States constitution, in protecting the freedom of speech, has limitation to speeches that include obscenities, child pornography, speech that incites violence as well as speech that constitutes real threats (Saunders, 2019). This shows that irrespective of the Freedom of Speech in the United States, this right is not absolute.

According to Alexander & Horton, constitutional grounds offer grounds for free speech, but speech on such grounds has many different parts. For example, a claim can be made that the public is to be made aware of the operations of the government in order to include them in the democratic process and to make appropriately informed decisions. The claim, as put forward in such instances, only allows for the practice of democracy.  An argument then arises whether any speech that has no bearing on democracy can be limited. This argument is supported by the proposition of Mill (2016)), who stated that all speech should be protected because it leads to the truth. Notably, it has been noted that many documents on human rights have a prominent place for the right of speech but have capped them based on the harm and offense that may be caused by unlimited speech.

Universities and colleges contain very diverse populations ranging from African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, and Caucasians. While this division is on the grounds of ethnic differences, the issue of unlimited speech is of great consequence on such populations.  For example, a person who believes in white supremacy in a college institution, May, in the exercise of freedom of speech, point out that African Americans should not be welcome in the institution. Within the confines of what passes as free speech, this statement is characteristically unlimited speech. However, concerning the conventional values of universities and colleges, there is the foundational value of the community (Shiffrin, 2014). This value explains that universities and colleges are committed to creating a community that is inclusive and collaborative and which is heightened by a spirit of freedom and charity.  This, therefore, implies that university in programming and policymaking should create an environment that is conducive to people from all backgrounds and races.

The issue of freedom of speech in universities and colleges can be addressed with a policy limiting the expression of individual perceptions as held by the students. It is not in contention that the diversity in the Universities makes it easy to have different ideas by the different parties in the population. Not all ideas by these parties may be suitable to other parties without harming them. It is, therefore, prudent for the university to come up with a policy that sets out the type of speech which will not be considered as free expression (Saunders, 2019). These may include hate speech, racist remarks, sexual harassment, and obscenities.

Mill suggested a fundamental concept with regard to free speech, and that is, social embarrassments should not dictate the expressions of our thoughts.  However, a key lesson from Mill’s theory of the harm principle reveals that in as much as we are free to express ourselves, care should be taken to ensure that our expression does not harm others. Guided by this principle, it befits to state that there is no absolute freedom of speech. The idea of free speech indeed exists, but it is not actionable with regard to the fact that unlimited speech could harm the same people that freedom of speech was intended to protect.

References

Mill, J. S. (2016). On Liberty. (n.p.): CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Roupenian, K. (2019, July 9). “Cat Person”. Retrieved February 23, 2020, from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person

Saunders, J. (2019). Media Ethics, Free Speech, and the Requirements of Democracy. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.

Shiffrin, S. H. (2014). The First Amendment, Democracy, and Romance. United States: Princeton University Press.