Fear, Loathing, and the First Amendment: Optimistic Skepticism and the Theory of Free Expression

Martin H. Redish
{"title":"Fear, Loathing, and the First Amendment: Optimistic Skepticism and the Theory of Free Expression","authors":"Martin H. Redish","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2551482","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Communitarian free speech theories give out a siren call. They naturally appeal to most Americans because they reflect the assumptions of moral unity on a national level normally associated with theories of communitarianism. In reality, however, such theories are both invidious and dangerous, for two reasons. First, they ignore the well-established reality of interest group politics and self-promotion that has long marked our nation’s form of democracy. Second, in so doing these theories, either intentionally or unknowingly, provide an attractive cover for an attempt to impose a particular ideological perspective on a very diverse society. To understand the proper role of free speech theory in American democracy, once initially needs to grasp — indeed, embrace — the politics of conflict and the clash of self-interests that inherently mark a pluralistic democracy. A constitutionally imposed principle of free expression flows not from some notion of a morally homogeneous society or a universal collaborative commitment to the pursuit of some mythical “common good,” but rather from recognition of the foundational role of liberal individualism in America’s adversary form of democracy. Of course, this does not imply that we live as individuals in a vacuum, rather than as part of a broader society. But that is exactly the point: We guarantee free expression for every member of society, regardless of our agreement with either the substance or motive for their speech, because we recognize from the outset that we all must work together, paradoxically, to make sure that we will still be able to continue competing with each other. The First Amendment, then, does for political battles what the Marquess of Queensberry Rules were intended to do for the sport of boxing: it imposes rules of behavior that temper and control the invidious impulses of the participants in the adversary conflicts. In this way, the First Amendment helps preserve the values of individual worth inherent in a commitment to liberal democratic thought while simultaneously protecting against the dangers of tyranny.","PeriodicalId":129013,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Law eJournal","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2551482","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Communitarian free speech theories give out a siren call. They naturally appeal to most Americans because they reflect the assumptions of moral unity on a national level normally associated with theories of communitarianism. In reality, however, such theories are both invidious and dangerous, for two reasons. First, they ignore the well-established reality of interest group politics and self-promotion that has long marked our nation’s form of democracy. Second, in so doing these theories, either intentionally or unknowingly, provide an attractive cover for an attempt to impose a particular ideological perspective on a very diverse society. To understand the proper role of free speech theory in American democracy, once initially needs to grasp — indeed, embrace — the politics of conflict and the clash of self-interests that inherently mark a pluralistic democracy. A constitutionally imposed principle of free expression flows not from some notion of a morally homogeneous society or a universal collaborative commitment to the pursuit of some mythical “common good,” but rather from recognition of the foundational role of liberal individualism in America’s adversary form of democracy. Of course, this does not imply that we live as individuals in a vacuum, rather than as part of a broader society. But that is exactly the point: We guarantee free expression for every member of society, regardless of our agreement with either the substance or motive for their speech, because we recognize from the outset that we all must work together, paradoxically, to make sure that we will still be able to continue competing with each other. The First Amendment, then, does for political battles what the Marquess of Queensberry Rules were intended to do for the sport of boxing: it imposes rules of behavior that temper and control the invidious impulses of the participants in the adversary conflicts. In this way, the First Amendment helps preserve the values of individual worth inherent in a commitment to liberal democratic thought while simultaneously protecting against the dangers of tyranny.
恐惧、厌恶与第一修正案:乐观怀疑主义与言论自由理论
社群主义言论自由理论发出了警报。它们自然对大多数美国人有吸引力,因为它们反映了通常与社群主义理论相关的国家层面的道德统一假设。然而,在现实中,这样的理论既令人反感又危险,原因有二。首先,他们忽视了利益集团政治和自我推销这一早已确立的现实,这是我们国家民主形式的长期标志。其次,在这样做的过程中,这些理论有意或无意地为试图将特定的意识形态观点强加于一个非常多样化的社会提供了一个诱人的掩护。要理解言论自由理论在美国民主中的适当作用,首先需要把握——实际上是拥抱——冲突政治和自身利益的冲突,这是多元化民主的内在标志。宪法规定的言论自由原则不是来自道德上同质的社会概念,也不是来自对追求某种神话般的“共同利益”的普遍合作承诺,而是来自对自由个人主义在与美国对立的民主形式中所起的基础作用的认识。当然,这并不意味着我们作为个体生活在真空中,而不是作为更广泛社会的一部分。但这正是问题的关键:我们保证社会每一个成员的言论自由,无论我们是否同意他们言论的内容或动机,因为我们从一开始就认识到,我们所有人都必须共同努力,以确保我们仍然能够继续相互竞争。因此,《第一修正案》对政治斗争的作用,就像《昆斯伯里侯爵规则》(Marquess of Queensberry Rules)对拳击运动的作用一样:它规定了一些行为规则,以缓和和控制敌对冲突参与者的怨恨冲动。通过这种方式,第一修正案有助于维护对自由民主思想的承诺所固有的个人价值,同时防止暴政的危险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信