ivashkiv blog 7

I am curious what happens when freedom of speech does not fall in line with the “information necessary to fully execute our duties to one another” (80). Shiffrin posits that “the foundation of free speech protection is that freedom of speech is necessary for the development and maintenance of the self qua thinker” (80). However, can freedom of speech present an avenue for bad actors to inhibit someone’s “development” or "self-knowledge”? (88).

This line of questioning brings in hate speech laws. Hate speech can cause suppression of one’s identity. From my understanding, hate speech would be protected under the umbrella of the “thinker approach.” This is mainly because of the connection between freedom of speech and progress, as “free speech is essential to the development, functioning, and operation of thinkers” (94). In this way, censorship would inhibit the “operation of thinkers” and could stunt overall moral development. Shiffrin does not explicitly mention hate speech. However, in reference to forms of dissent, Shiffrin posits that “we provide foundational protection to these forms of communication,” implying that hate speech, while bad, should be protected.

A lot of the usual worries about hate speech laws make sense. This is because of the connection between speech and moral development that Shiffrin writes about. Afterall, lawmakers could actually censor speech that could eventually lead to moral development. For example, speech in favor of same-sex relationships could have been deemed hate speech at some point in the past. 

However, I wonder if moral progress has actually enabled humans to have some sense of what is right and wrong. Shiffrin’s thesis implies that freedom of speech facilitates a necessary recognition of moral agency within others that results in moral development. Maybe not all people have realized a moral development, but enough of us have so the development results in real-world changes. The minority the people who have not recognized the moral development are in a position to hurt and take away from the moral progression that the rest of the people have agreed on. In this way, it makes sense to enact laws, hate speech laws, that society has epistemically determined would protect a moral development. Of course, this is not easy to do in practice. However, I think using a backward-looking view would make it easier to decipher that a moral progression has occurred. On the flip side, causing violence would be a bad barometer to detect the necessity of a hate speech law. Bad actors could incite violence in retaliation to speech that they do not agree with. Instead, a backward-looking view would use moral progress as a barometer.

If we acknowledge that freedom of speech enables moral development, then why should we not enact laws that mark and protect the development?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gero - Final Farewell Blog Post Fifteen

        The concept of the private government of the modern workplace as described by Anderson in Chapter 2 of   Private Government   enforces a double jeopardy on women in particular. In her paper “Unstrapping the Straitjacket of Preference” Anderson asserts that “bargaining theory recommends that, if women are to improve their situation, they ought to seek employment outside of the home” (page 35). Women’s situation is also improved as work allows women to create an identity outside of the home through joining larger group identities (page 36). Putting this dilemma in the language of   Private Government , women suffer under the patriarchal private governments of the home, where fathers and husbands exert arbitrary and unaccountable power over them. To create identity, they must then join additional private government outside of the home and in the workplace.             While many...
Read more

Mehra - Blog Post "Lucky Number 13"

  In “Unstrapping the Straightjacket of ‘Preference;’ a Comment on Amartya Sen’s Contributions to Philosophy and Economics”, Elizabeth Anderson expands Sen’s suspicion of ‘preference’ as the function of rational decision making. In attempting to fill Sen’s lacuna regarding rational judgments and building off his prior work, Anderson puts forth “ The Priority of Identity to Rational Principle : what principle of choice it is rational to act on depends on a prior determination of personal identity, of who one is” (30). Identity advances the force of collective agency. According to Anderson, “In taking up the perspective of collective agency, the parties to an n-person prisoner’s dilemma can see their actions as jointly advancing a desirable goal even though none of their actions taken in isolation has a positive marginal impact on that goal” (30). Identity with part of a group compels them to take membership in collective action and advance shared goals. Identity is messy, nuanced, a...
Read more

Discussion Leader Sign Up

  Discussion Leader Sign Up (“bb” = before break; “ab” = after break)   March 25: Brettschneider   When the State … (bb): Wills March 25: Brettschneider When the State … (ab): Josh   April 1: Brettschneider (bb): Brettschneider April 1: Brettschneider (ab): Tara   April 8: Scalia et al (bb): Olivia April 8: Scalia et al (ab): Jess   April 15: Adam Smith (bb):Cam April 15: Adam Smith (ab):Daniel K   April 22: Sen (bb): Amari April 22: Sen (ab): Daniel H   April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (bb): April 29: Anderson “Unstrapping…” (ab):   May 4: Anderson Private Government (bb): Alexis May 4: Anderson Private Government (ab): Sarah   May 6: Anderson (bb): Anderson
Read more