Yonatan Shemmer The Department of Philosophy Freedom of Speech Yonatan Shemmer The Department of Philosophy

The structure of this presentation What questions can we ask about freedom of speech? The importance of freedom of speech. The argument from offense. Case study: hate speech.

What questions can we ask about freedom of speech Why is freedom of speech important???

What questions can we ask about freedom of speech Why is freedom of speech important? Are all locations/contexts equal? In one’s private space In someone else’s home In open public spaces In enclosed public spaces In private institutions Work University School

What questions can we ask about freedom of speech Why is freedom of speech important? Are all locations/contexts equal? What are the threats to freedom of speech? The state Public opinion Marginalization Inundation Lack of platform

What questions can we ask about freedom of speech Why is freedom of speech important? Are all locations/contexts equal? What are the threats to freedom of speech? What are the principled reasons for limiting freedom of speech? Morality Harm Offence Equality Any interest

The Importance of freedom of speech Because it is inseparable from freedom of thought Because it is necessary for critical thinking, creativity and science Because it is necessary to fight tyranny Because it is necessary to promote truth and since no-one can be sure his/her view is correct Because even if a view is false understanding it is necessary to understanding the correct view

The argument from offense – context What: prohibition on freedom of speech Why: offense Where: open public spaces By whom: the state

The argument from offense – background Mill argued that only harm to another can be a reason to limit freedom of speech. There has been much debate about what counts as harm and about ‘how much harm is necessary…’. Part of the problem is that harm can be subjective. That is why ‘harm’ is sometimes understood as ‘a violation of a person’s rights which involves a setback to his/her interests.’

There is no right not to be offended Most people think there is no right that others don’t offend you Example: I get offended if you do not invite me to your birthday Some philosophers who think that ‘offense’ is not a form of ‘harm’ nevertheless think it can be a reason to limit freedom of speech

Joel Feinberg and the offense principle “it is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense...to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end..” 1985

What is offense? 1. ‘Offense’ involves conduct producing unpleasant or uncomfortable experiences – affronts to sense or sensibility, disgust, shock, shame, embarrassment, annoyance, boredom, anger, fear, or humiliation – from which one cannot escape without unreasonable inconvenience or even harm. 2. When a person is offended she is subjected to a particular kind of nuisance: she both suffers a universally disliked mental state caused by the nuisance, and she attributes that state to the wrongful conduct of another.

Restrictions of the offense principle 1. Offense is less serious than harm so the punishment should be much less severe 2. The prohibition of speech on the basis of offense should be determined by the severity of the offense. Many factors determine how severe is an offense. For example: Whether the offense can be avoided (e.g. in an enclosed space that one elects to enter) How many people are offended How strong is the offense (e.g. if the offense is experienced or merely known)

Possible arguments for the offense principle Offense is a kind of mild harm. We already prohibit offensive behavior that’s not speech. The offence principle makes sense of our intuitions It protects public morality

Case study – The Nazi party of America’s plan to march through Skokie, Illinois

Reflection on the Skokie case Is a swastika a form of speech? Is a Nazi march (through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors) likely to cause harm? ------ Assuming the march was not going to cause harm and that offense can be a reason to limit speech: Is such a march likely to cause serious offense? Is the public benefit sufficient to outbalance the offense?