- New Report: Most College Students Agree that Campus Free Speech is Waning
- Top Authors
- Freedom of speech - Wikipedia
It is to shape public opinion and to influence elections that, in turn, determine the social climate and steer government. We cherish "the marketplace of ideas" because we assume it allows us, through give and take, to arrive at better ideas and to grope our way toward consensus on hard issues. Free speech's second function is less understood. It buttresses the political system's legitimacy. It helps losers, in the struggle for public opinion and electoral success, to accept their fates. It helps keep them loyal to the system, even though it has disappointed them. They will accept the outcomes, because they believe they've had a fair opportunity to express and advance their views.
There's always the next election.
New Report: Most College Students Agree that Campus Free Speech is Waning
Downs begins by analyzing the nature and evolution of the problem, and discusses how these betrayals of liberty have harmed the truth seeking mission of universities. Rather than promoting equal respect and tolerance of diversity, policies restricting academic freedom and civil liberty have proved divisive, and have compromised the robust exchange of ideas that is a necessary condition of a meaningful education.
Drawing on personal experience as well as research, Downs presents four case studies that illustrate the difference that conscientious political resistance and mobilization of faculty and students can make. Such movements have brought about unexpected success in renewing the principles of free speech, academic freedom, and civil liberty at universities where they have been active.
Other books in this series. Add to basket. Anarchy and the Law Edward Peter Stringham.
Priceless John C. Antitrust and Monopoly Dominick T. Crisis and Leviathan Robert Higgs. Lessons from the Poor James D Gwartney. Race and Liberty in America Jonathan J. Risky Business Lawrence S. Hazardous to Our Health? Housing America Randall G. Money and the Nation State Kevin Dowd. Nature Unbound Kenneth J. Aquanomics B. A Better Choice Goodman. Slavery in the United States Louis Filler.
Cutting Green Tape W. Table of contents Part I.
- Department of Political Science!
- The Structure and Rheology of Complex Fluids (Topics in Chemical Engineering).
- Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus by Donald Alexander Downs.
Introduction and Background: 1. The return of the proprietary university and the new politics of free speech and civil liberty; 2. Background: the rise of anti-free speech and liberty ideologies; Part II. The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order order public , or of public health or morals".
Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel , slander , obscenity , pornography , sedition , incitement , fighting words , classified information , copyright violation , trade secrets , food labeling , non-disclosure agreements , the right to privacy , the right to be forgotten , public security , and perjury.
Justifications for such include the harm principle , proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty , which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. The idea of the "offense principle" is also used in the justification of speech limitations, describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed offensive to society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of the speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided.
Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments.
Concepts of freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , adopted in , states that:. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Today, freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognised in international and regional human rights law.
International, regional and national standards also recognise that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, whether it be orally, in written, in print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression. The right to freedom of speech and expression is closely related to other rights, and may be limited when conflicting with other rights see limitations on freedom of speech. However greater latitude is given when criticism of public figures is involved.
The right to freedom of expression is particularly important for media , which plays a special role as the bearer of the general right to freedom of expression for all. Judith Lichtenberg has outlined conditions in which freedom of the press may constrain freedom of speech, for example where the media suppresses information or stifles the diversity of voices inherent in freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech - Wikipedia
Lichtenberg argues that freedom of the press is simply a form of property right summed up by the principle "no money, no voice". Freedom of speech is understood to be fundamental in a democracy. The norms on limiting freedom of expression mean that public debate may not be completely suppressed even in times of emergency. He has argued that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work, an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas.
According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal. Eric Barendt has called this defence of free speech on the grounds of democracy "probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies".
Emerson expanded on this defence when he argued that freedom of speech helps to provide a balance between stability and change. Freedom of speech acts as a "safety valve" to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on revolution. He argues that "The principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a more adaptable and at the same time more stable community, of maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus.
Research undertaken by the Worldwide Governance Indicators project at the World Bank , indicates that freedom of speech, and the process of accountability that follows it, have a significant impact in the quality of governance of a country. Richard Moon has developed the argument that the value of freedom of speech and freedom of expression lies with social interactions.
Moon writes that "by communicating an individual forms relationships and associations with others — family, friends, co-workers, church congregation, and countrymen.
By entering into discussion with others an individual participates in the development of knowledge and in the direction of the community. Legal systems sometimes recognise certain limits on or to the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other rights and freedoms, such as in the cases of libel , slander , pornography , obscenity , fighting words , and intellectual property. In Europe, blasphemy is a limitation to free speech.
Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both. In , Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offence principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviours of others. Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offence as opposed to injury or harm to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end.
But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm. Along similar lines as Mill, Jasper Doomen argued that harm should be defined from the point of view of the individual citizen, not limiting harm to physical harm since nonphysical harm may also be involved; Feinberg's distinction between harm and offence is criticized as largely trivial. In , Bernard Harcourt wrote of the collapse of the harm principle: "Today the debate is characterized by a cacophony of competing harm arguments without any way to resolve them.
There is no longer an argument within the structure of the debate to resolve the competing claims of harm.
- Outsmart Your Cancer: Alternative Non-Toxic Treatments That Work (Second Edition)With CD;
- Eternity : a history.
- A Defense of the Neoliberal University.
- Geometry, Morphology, and Computational Imaging: 11th International Workshop on Theoretical Foundations of Computer Vision Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, April 7–12, 2002 Revised Papers.
The original harm principle was never equipped to determine the relative importance of harms. Interpretations of both the harm and offense limitations to freedom of speech are culturally and politically relative. A number of European countries that take pride in freedom of speech nevertheless outlaw speech that might be interpreted as Holocaust denial.
In the U. Ohio ,  expressly overruling Whitney v. The opinion in Brandenburg discarded the previous test of "clear and present danger" and made the right to freedom of political speech's protections in the United States almost absolute.