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

2. 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.

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. 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.’

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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)

14. 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

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

16. 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?