Kent Greenawalt: Freedom of Speech Adam D. Moore Information School

minimal principle of liberty: the government should not prohibit people from acting as they wish unless it has a positive reason to do so The ordinary reason for prohibiting action is that the action is deemed harmful or potentially harmful in some respect; driving a car 100 miles per hour is forbidden because people are likely to get hurt.

What counts as “harm”: “I mean the term in an inclusive, nonrestrictive sense, including indirect harms, psychological harms, harms to the actor, and even harms to the natural order.” ??

Consequentialist Justifications Truth discovery: allowing free speech leads to ‘truth’ as some point. . . Objections: objective “truth” does not exist if truth does exist, human beings cannot identify it if human beings can identify truth sometimes, free discussion does not evidently contribute to their capacity to do so

Consequentialist Justifications Exposure and Deterrence of Abuses of Authority free speech as a check on abuse of authority, especially governmental authority Autonomy: Independence of Judgment and Considerate Decision “By affording people an opportunity to hear and digest competing positions and to explore options in conversations with others, freedom of discussion is thought to promote independent judgment and considerate decision”

Consequentialist Justifications Emotional Outlet, Personal Development, and Sense of Dignity “communication is a crucial way to relate to others; it is also an indispensable outlet for emotion and a vital aspect of the development of one’s personality and ideas”

Consequentialist Justifications Liberal Democracy: “free speech contributes importantly the functioning of liberal democracy and to the values it serves” citizens, gov. officials etc. need info…. Promoting Tolerance “if we are forced to acknowledge the right of detested groups to speak, we are taught the lesson that we should be tolerant of the opinions and behavior of those who are not like us”

Non-Consequentialist Justifications Social Contract Theory: Consent information – bargaining/contracts Recognition of Autonomy and Rationality – and access to info every governmental prohibition of action interferes with free choice the government must always treat citizens as autonomous by maximizing opportunities for informed choice

Dignity and Equality suppression represents a kind of contempt for citizens “Expressions of beliefs and feelings lie closer to the core of our persons than do most actions we perform; restrictions of expression may offend dignity to a greater degree than most other restrictions; and selective restrictions based on the content of our ideas may imply a specially significant inequality.”