What are the limits of free speech? | Big Think

Summary

The video script features a panel discussion on free speech, emphasizing its power to cause both harm and good. NADINE STROSSEN argues against censorship, asserting that it often silences critics and maintains power structures. NICHOLAS CHRISTAKIS and others advocate for defending free speech even when disagreeing with the content. JOSH LIEB and FLOYD ABRAMS discuss legal boundaries and the evolution of free speech protection, with ABRAMS highlighting the U.S.'s strong commitment to it. STROSSEN further explains the First Amendment's principles, stressing content neutrality and emergency restrictions. MICHAEL SHERMER and ALICE DREGER emphasize open dialogue and education's role in challenging beliefs. The script concludes with calls for understanding diverse viewpoints and the importance of free speech for social justice, as illustrated by historical figures and contemporary campus debates.

Takeaways

• 🗣️ Free speech is powerful and can be used for both good and harm, hence the importance of its responsible use.
• 🚫 Censorship is harmful because it's often used by those in power to silence critics and maintain their power.
• 🌟 Freedom of speech is foundational to every other right and is essential for societal progress.
• 🤔 The debate is not about whether to defend free speech but how to handle it when it conflicts with other values.
• 📚 Defending free speech includes defending the right to express even disagreeable ideas without fear of repercussions.
• 📈 The effectiveness of censorship is questionable, as it may not reduce harm and could be counterproductive.
• 🏛️ Historically, the Supreme Court has set boundaries for free speech, especially in cases of libel and national security.
• 🚨 There are exceptions to free speech, such as incitement of violence or direct threats, where government intervention is justified.
• 🧐 It's crucial to understand and respect differing viewpoints, even if they are unpopular or offensive, for the health of democracy.
• 🏫 Universities should be places for open dialogue and challenging preconceived notions, not for censoring certain ideas.
• 💡 The importance of free speech extends to the rights of the audience to listen and learn from diverse perspectives.

Q & A

Why does Nadine Strossen believe that censorship is harmful?

Nadine Strossen believes that censorship is harmful because it is an acknowledgment of the power of speech. Censorship tends to be used by those in power to silence critics and maintain their own power, rather than to protect society from harmful speech.

According to Nicholas Christakis, how should we respond to speech we disagree with?

Nicholas Christakis suggests that instead of suppressing speech we disagree with, we should respond to it. He advocates for the freedom of expression even when it is used to convey ideas we may not agree with, emphasizing the importance of dialogue and argument as a means to test and strengthen our own ideas.

Josh Lieb mentions that legally one should be able to say anything they want, but what does he think about being associated with someone whose views one disagrees with?

Josh Lieb believes that while one should be able to express any view legally, it is also acceptable to choose not to be associated with someone whose views one disagrees with. He cites examples such as not wanting to be on a TV show with someone or a publishing house not wanting to publish a book by an author they find objectionable.

What does Floyd Abrams say about the boundaries on freedom of speech and the press?

Floyd Abrams acknowledges that there have always been boundaries on freedom of speech and of the press, which have been interpreted differently over time. He mentions libel law as an example and discusses how the Supreme Court has expanded beyond old laws to protect freedom of speech, especially when it comes to public figures.

How does Strossen differentiate between the non-censorship principle and the emergency principle in the context of the First Amendment?

Strossen explains that the non-censorship principle, or content neutrality, dictates that the government may not suppress speech based solely on its content, message, or viewpoint. The emergency principle, on the other hand, allows for government to restrict speech if it directly causes serious, imminent, and specific harm, and suppression is the only way to avert that harm.

Why does Michael Shermer defend the free speech of Holocaust deniers, even though he disagrees with them?

Michael Shermer defends the free speech of Holocaust deniers because he believes in the principle of free speech as a fundamental right. He argues that even wrong or abhorrent ideas should be countered with argument and evidence rather than being suppressed, as a means to maintain the integrity of free speech as a concept.

Alice Dreger discusses the issue of preexisting beliefs on university campuses. What is her stance on this?

Alice Dreger finds it problematic that university campuses often encourage students to bring their preexisting beliefs and identities without questioning them. She advocates for an environment where all viewpoints are allowed and where real conversations about different points of view can take place, fostering a meaningful education.

What does Strossen argue about the effectiveness of censorship in addressing societal harms?

Strossen argues that censorship is often ineffective or even counterproductive in addressing societal harms. She suggests that those who advocate for censorship do not consider whether it will actually reduce harm or whether it might do more harm than good by empowering certain entities to decide what is acceptable speech.

How does Shermer view the importance of understanding opposing viewpoints?

Shermer emphasizes that understanding opposing viewpoints is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of any issue. He believes that even if one's own position is correct, listening to others can strengthen one's position and also reveals the possibility that one might be wrong.

What does Jon Zimmerman say about the misconception that free speech is a conservative value?

Jon Zimmerman finds it ahistorical to view free speech as a conservative value. He points out that many social justice warriors in the past, such as Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, were absolutists on free speech because they understood its importance as a tool for the marginalized.

How does Mary Beth Tinker respond to students who argue against providing a platform for speakers with opposing views?

Mary Beth Tinker argues that speech, even if it seems hurtful or wrong, is a powerful tool, especially for the powerless. She emphasizes that her protest against the Vietnam War was also hurtful to some, but that the right to speak out is essential. She warns that if speech is censored, it could eventually be used against those with the least power.