Twelve Fallacies About Free Speech, Refuted

At Areo, Greg Lukianoff (An attorney who is the President and CEO of FIRE, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) wrote this article to refute twelve fallacious arguments about free speech. Here are the fallacies:

  • Free speech was created under the false notion that words and violence are distinct, but we now know that certain speech is more akin to violence.
  • Free speech rests on the faulty notion that words are harmless.
  • Free speech is the tool of the powerful, not the powerless.
  • The right to free speech means the government can’t arrest you for what you say; it still leaves other people free to kick you out.
  • But you can’t shout fire! in a crowded theatre.
  • The arguments for freedom of speech are outdated.
  • Hate speech laws are important for reducing intolerance, even if there may be some examples of abuse.
  • Free speech is nothing but a conservative talking point.
  • Restrictions on free speech are OK if they are made in the name of civility.
  • You need speech restrictions to preserve cultural diversity.
  • Free speech is an outdated idea; it’s time for new thinking.
  • I believe in free speech, but not for blasphemy.

Visit Areo for Lukianoff’s responses to each of these fallacies.

In response to the fallacy that free speech is an outdated concept, Lukianoff gave this succinct defense of John Stuart Mill, from On Liberty (available from free at this link):

John Stuart Mill’s central arguments in On Liberty remain undefeated, including one of his strongest arguments in favour of freedom of speech—Mill’s trident—of which I have never heard a persuasive refutation. Mill’s trident holds that, for any given belief, there are three options:

A) You are wrong, in which case freedom of speech is essential to allow people to correct you.
B) You are partially correct, in which case you need free speech and contrary viewpoints to help you get a more precise understanding of what the truth really is.
C) You are 100% correct. In this unlikely event, you still need people to argue with you, to try to contradict you, and to try to prove you wrong. Why? Because if you never have to defend your points of view, there is a very good chance you don’t really understand them, and that you hold them the same way you would hold a prejudice or superstition. It’s only through arguing with contrary viewpoints that you come to understand why what you believe is true.

Lukianoff ends his article with this:

Free speech is valuable, first and foremost, because, without it, there is no way to know the world as it actually is. Understanding human perceptions, even incorrect ones, is always of scientific or scholarly value, and, in a democracy, it is essential to know what people really believe. This is my “pure informational theory of freedom of speech.” To think that, without openness, we can know what people really believe is not only hubris, but magical thinking. The process of coming to knowing the world as it is is much more arduous than we usually appreciate. It starts with this: recognize that you are probably wrong about any number of things, exercise genuine curiosity about everything (including each other), and always remember that it is better to know the world as it really is—and that the process of finding that out never ends.

Share

Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on civil rights (including First Amendment), consumer law litigation and appellate practice. At this website often writes about censorship, corporate news media corruption and cognitive science. He is also a working musician, artist and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in St. Louis, Missouri with his two daughters.

This Post Has 5 Comments

  1. Avatar of Erich Vieth
    Erich Vieth

    Greg Lukianoff:

    What do you call an idea that has a clear track record of promoting innovation, human flourishing, prosperity, and progress, but is nonetheless rejected by every generation?

    I would call that idea radical. And because it’s always so staunchly opposed, I would call that idea “eternally radical.”

    So what is the Eternally Radical Idea? It is freedom of speech.

    The unfettered right to state your opinion is extremely rare in human history. Your right to promote reform, contradict prevailing orthodoxies, or engage in artistic and personal expression is even rarer.

  2. Avatar of Bill Heath
    Bill Heath

    I just had an aha moment. Freedom of speech is critical to advances in science, hence technology; in a relationship culture, freedom from forced speech is existential.

    1. Avatar of Erich Vieth
      Erich Vieth

      Agreed. Also, restricted speech poisons and ossifies culture and individuals too, because who we think we are depends (usually imperceptibly) on the culture(s) we swim in.

  3. Avatar of Erich Vieth
    Erich Vieth

    About Oliver Wendell Holmes comment about yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater. First, Holmes’ quote:

    In one of the most famous 1st Amendment cases in U.S. history, Schenck vs. United States, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. established that the right to free speech in the United States is not unlimited. “The most stringent protection,” he wrote on behalf of a unanimous court, “would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”

    For the detailed explanation for why this phrase is unhelpful to those who seek to censor speech that they consider harmful or “violent,” Ken White explains:

    Holmes’ quote is the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech. This post is not about fisking Sarah Chayes; her column deserves it, but I will leave it to another time. This post is about putting the Holmes quote in context, and explaining why it adds nothing to a First Amendment debate.

    Holmes’ Full-Throated Approval For Suppression of Wartime Dissent

    Holmes’ famous quote comes in the context of a series of early 1919 Supreme Court decisions in which he endorsed government censorship of wartime dissent — dissent that is now clearly protected by subsequent First Amendment authority.

    . . .

    After Holmes’ opinions in the Schenck trilogy, the law of the United States was this: you could be convicted and sentenced to prison under the Espionage Act if you criticized the war, or conscription, in a way that “obstructed” conscription, which might mean as little as convincing people to write and march and petition against it. This is the context of the “fire in a theater” quote that people so love to brandish to justify censorship.

    . . .

    Bear all of that in mind the next time someone name-drops Holmes and cites Schenck as part of a broad endorsement of censorship. The problem isn’t that they’re incorrectly citing Holmes. The problem is that they are citing him exactly right, for the vague, censorious, and fortunately long-departed “standard” he articulated. Justice Holmes, three generations of hearing your sound-bite are enough.

  4. Avatar of Bill Heath
    Bill Heath

    The other issue with shouting “fire” in a theater is that, if the theater is in fact on fire, charges of violence cannot be brought unless it’s the arsonist doing the shouting.

Leave a Reply