Why free speech?
Free speech is a controversial topic today, thanks to the internet. Challenges in our social, political, and economic systems are constantly evolving. People are motivated to call out mediocrity on these issues when freedom is guaranteed. In that regard, free speech stirs action and controls vices like abuse of power in our societies. In the long run, that is beneficial to everyone.
We have therefore staged a conversation between one of the fathers of Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873), and one of the greatest deontologists to ever grace the land, Sir Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804). We have let these great philosophers define free speech in their own words and freely walk from the bottom to the top with differing perspectives while peacefully debating and sharing ideas.
Here are the six questions on which their conversation will circle.
A) What is free speech?
B) Why does free speech matter?
C) Should the state be allowed to regulate free speech?
D) Should employers be allowed to fire someone for what they say outside of the workplace?
E) Should comedians be “canceled” for what they say?
F) If so, what kind of speech might be subject to state regulation and/or eligible for dismissal and/or public criticized?
Be keen to spot any inconsistencies in their conversation. Off it begins.
A
Kant
In Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, free speech is recognized and defined as the right to unregulated expression of an individual textually or by symbols, with no censorship, legal sanction, or retaliation. Allow me to ask, does free speech matter?
B
Mill
Yes, it does. Free speech matters because it upholds and protects democracy. We both know that fuels fairness and equality for everyone in society. With a strong democracy, there is a sense of social satisfaction entailed in what members of society can say about what concerns them. It is pleasing to be in a community that allows its people to point out what they think is unsustainable to their existence.
Kant
But you know many people in many societies do not get a chance to express their opinions on subjects that truly affect them, right? How can you then justify that there is happiness?
C
Mill
Yes. That is the point. Regulating free speech shuts down the little voices that represent others and counter their happiness.
Kant
Having happiness at the end of the line makes no sense to me as happiness is a feeling and feelings are bound to change. In addition, feelings occur differently from person to person hence, happiness can only exist in a society that has regulations set in place. Do you not get that to be contradictory?
Mill
Do you? To me, regulated speech can never be free speech. It is just…
Kant
It is just what? Democracy is still protected with discomforting speech and without happiness. I trust that it is appropriate for members of a society to express their ideas and independently receive expressions from other members.
Mill
I think that is fair. Keep talking.
Kant
Thank you. As I was saying, that should go on whether the outcomes of the speech are undesirable or desirable. However, their speech should be within the confines of the laws established in that community.
Mill
Here it comes, a quick question to you. Why would you regulate free speech with laws when the result is good for everybody or the majority? Regulation should only happen when free speech offers no utility.
Kant
How do you not see it? Your argument is inconsistent with the issue at hand. How can you embrace justice, an ideal value that sustains our societies, with that kind of take on free speech? The state has the right to say no to freedom of expression if that freedom undermines security as threatening public order or going against a state’s instruction.
Mill
Free speech is given up by an individual when she or he is expressing it in violation of the natural rights of others. Morally, it is wrong and unacceptable. The government must protect the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness of its citizens.
D
Kant
Again, do you not know that many wrong things can please the majority of the population but be ethically, economically, and socially wrong? The state operates under the law. Going outside the range of those laws attracts punishment and that is sustainable. You know it Mill.
Let me ask you this. Should employers be allowed to fire someone for what they say outside of the workplace?
Mill
That largely depends on the utility of what is said. An employee will not get fired when the words rain benefits the workplace environment and the organization. Though, if the employee purposes harm and distortion of the image of the employer or the company this someone works in, then firing is justified only if it is satisfactory.
Kant
Here we go again.
Mill
What is that?
Kant
Employment happens with rules and regulations to guide the employees. An employee is free to talk outside of the workplace. Though, they should not violate the policy signed at the workplace and breach the code of conduct of the workplace. Getting fired should happen when an employee has gone against the rules.
Mill
What if they have violated the laws but then it results to the good of everyone?
Kant
It does not matter. The key point is violation of the law. Everything else comes later. That means the employment can get terminated if they revealed secrets of the workplace and harmed the marketing, functioning, profitability, and general operations.
Mill
Fine, but then we have to look at what laws they have violated. Later, right?
Kant
Ha-ha, yes. The laws they agreed to abide with.
E
Mill
I will cut you right there. Tell me then, should comedians be “cancelled” for what they say?
Kant
You know my position by now. And it is what you will get. Free speech is limited to how it was delivered, the time it was delivered, and the place. A comedian in a comedy theatre operating under a code of conduct for the theatre is allowed to say or can be understood differently as opposed to a teacher saying the same thing to students or a military general saying the same on the internet.
Mill
Free speech that is causing harm to society is intolerable. And a comedian is not an exception. A comedian’s or comedienne’s audience does not represent the entire population. Therefore, they must consider the outcome of their words to the general population. If they are harmful, then cancellation is justified.
Kant
I disagree. A comedian can be ‘cancelled’ if what they say violates the rules under which they operate as comedians and as members of society.
F
Mill
Really Kant? If so, what kind of speech might be subject to State regulation and/or eligible for dismissal and/or publicly criticizable? Where can we draw the line? Is considering the end result meaningless to you?
Kant
If free speech intends to entertain, then word goes to the limits of time, place, and manner of delivery. However, instructional, informative, or persuasive speech should align with the law.
Cancellation largely depends on violation of the industry’s pre-set rules and regulations of conduct. And that is my final and unchanged position.
Mill
I understand you. From the way I see it, harmful and offensive content creates division among the people. It is worse if the content is, as you pointed out, persuasive, instructive, or informative. The state should regulate speech that counters happiness and encourage speech that promotes happiness.
That calm response from Mill gets us to the end of the conversation. Share your thoughts in the comments below.
References
Egemenoglu, E. (2020, March 1). First Amendment. LII / Legal Information Institute; Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment#
Tardi, C. (2022, June 10). Utilitarianism Definition. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utilitarianism.asp#:~:text=Investopedia%20%2F%20Jessica%20Olah-
Vile, J. R. (2009). Natural Rights. Www.mtsu.edu. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/822/natural-rights
ZAMIR, E., & MEDINA, B. (2010). Freedom of Speech. Law, Economics, and Morality, 177–224. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195372168.003.07