Free-Speech Position

A Free-Speech Position is a philosophical position that argues for the protection of freedom of speech.

• Context:
  • It can be based on a Free-Speech Legal Framework, such as the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or other National Laws.
  • It holds that restricting lawful expression risks causing greater societal harm than allowing that expression.
  • It emphasizes intellectual freedom and individual conscience over social engineering or collective good.
  • It cautions against empowering authority to determine acceptable speech.
  • It applies to all forms of expression - political, artistic, academic - regardless of offensiveness.
  • It is a counter-position to woke advocacy for limiting hate speech, misinformation, or causing psychological harm.
  • It can vary from advocating for Absolute Free Speech (with no restrictions) to supporting Limited Free Speech (with certain restrictions for reasons such as National Security, Public Order, Hate Speech Prevention, or Privacy Protection).
  • It can be influenced by Cultural Norms, Historical Context, Political Ideologies, and Social Dynamics.
  • It can be a subject of Public Debate and Legal Challenges.
  • It can (typically) involve considerations of Harm Principle, Offense Principle, and Moral Rights.
  • It can be affected by Technological Advancements in Communication Platforms, like Social Media, influencing the nature and impact of speech.
  • It can be a focus in Human Rights Advocacy, Political Campaigns, and Academic Research.
  • ...
• Example(s):
  • A Libertarian Free-Speech Position, advocating for minimal restrictions on speech.
  • A Progressive Free-Speech Position, which might advocate for restrictions on speech to prevent harm to marginalized groups.
  • A Governmental Censorship Position, where speech is heavily regulated by the government.
  • An Academic Freedom Position, focusing on the freedom of speech in educational settings.
  • …
• Counter-Example(s):
  • A Non-Speech Related Civil Right, such as the right to privacy.
  • A Totalitarian Censorship Position, where all forms of speech are controlled by the state without regard to freedom of speech pr
• Example(s):
  • Opposing university policy to discipline students for microaggressions or triggering speech.
  • Rejecting the removal of controversial statues or renaming of public buildings and institutions.
  • Arguing that social media platforms should not ban users for misinformation or abusive speech.
  • Defending the rights of protesters to express offensive or provocative political messages.
  • …
• Counter-Example(s):
  • Woke Position.
  • Corporate Censorship Position of employees or platform users.
• See: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Inviolable Right.

---

---

References

2023

• GBard
  • The free-speech position, also known as the absolutist position or radical position, is the view that freedom of speech is an absolute right and that the government should never restrict it, even in cases of hate speech, incitement to violence, or false statements. Proponents of this position argue that the free marketplace of ideas will ultimately lead to the truth and that any attempt to suppress speech is dangerous and counterproductive.
  • Arguments in favor of the free-speech position:
    • Freedom of speech is essential for a free and democratic society. In order for people to make informed decisions about their lives and their government, they need to be able to hear all sides of an issue, even those that are unpopular or offensive.
    • Suppressing speech does not work. When the government tries to suppress speech, it often has the opposite effect of making the speech more popular and powerful.
    • The government is not the best judge of what is true or false. The government is made up of fallible people who are just as likely to be wrong as anyone else. Trying to give the government the power to decide what is true or false is dangerous because it could lead to censorship and the suppression of important information.
    • Hate speech and incitement to violence are already illegal. There are already laws against hate speech and incitement to violence. These laws can be used to punish people who have used their freedom of speech to harm others.
  • Arguments against the free-speech position:
    • Freedom of speech is not absolute. There are some types of speech that can cause harm, such as hate speech and incitement to violence. The government has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from harm, and it can sometimes justify restricting speech in order to do so.
    • The free marketplace of ideas does not always work. There are times when false information can spread quickly and easily, and it can be difficult to correct. This can lead to bad decisions being made, both by individuals and by the government.
    • Suppressing speech can sometimes be necessary. In rare cases, it may be necessary to suppress speech in order to prevent harm. For example, if a government official is about to divulge classified information that could put national security at risk, it may be necessary to silence that official.
    • The government is better equipped to judge what is true or false than any individual. The government has access to a vast amount of information and resources that individuals do not. This gives the government a better position from which to judge what is true or false.

---