PPECMC2021CovidCrusaders

  Shiffrin thinker-based approach to free speech does an excellent job of accounting for people’s ability and need to form their own opinions. The way she sets up the idea is almost like a blueprint for building ‘the thinking individual.’ She briefly touches on the possible limitations that should be placed on corporate business speech, due to its “‘forced profit orientation’ and [the fact that] it does not ‘represent a manifestation of individual freedom of choice’,” (99). I believe that this is a great point and assists in preventing “corporate dictatorships,” (109) that she later alludes to. However, in her discussion of censorship, on page 109, she notes that “the size, power, and ubiquity of the state…represent a more daunting threat to the disparate threats that arrive from various and varied private sources,” (109). However, almost encouraging the question, she notes that this strength becomes negligible in scenarios where corporations “control vast amounts of resources an...

In Seana Shiffrin’s chapter three of Speech Matters , she delineates the difference between “thinker-based” freedom of speech and “speaker-based” and “listener-based” approaches to freedom of speech. She highlights that the significance of this “thinker-based” approach to freedom of speech is one that ensures that we are able to “develop and exercise our capacities for cultivating and conveying our thoughts, beliefs, and other mental states” (34). She argues that a “thinker-based” approach must also operate such that “Foundationally, freedom of speech is as crucial to children as it is to adults” (41). Shiffrin admits that to an extent young children and people with disabilities are not capable of full protection of free speech. However, this raises a few questions.  First, Shiffrin is firm to believe that children’s freedom of speech is in general equally essential as adults in general even if their full faculties are not developed. Children may be guided and taught along the way,...

  In her discussion of private and public censorship, Shiffrin writes “Given the size, power, and ubiquity of the state, the state may represent a more daunting threat to freedom of speech than the disparate threats that arise from various and varied private sources” (109). She later follows with “while the government may not permissibly exclude a citizen from citizenship or from elective office on account of his or her political views, a voluntary private association must be able to exclude members on the basis of their thoughts and speech” (109). While I understand and to a good extent agree with both Shiffrin’s points in this section, I wonder if there are instances where private power can overpower public power in regards to how it affects the individuals interacting with it. For instance, sometimes private associations can take on large scales and seem to directly influence an individual's day to day life, as in their social acceptance, well-being, sense of community, much mor...

       In chapter three of Speech Matters, Shiffrin makes an argument about a thinker-based approach to freedom of speech. A particular part of the argument that I wanted to focus on, was her argument on how a thinker-based approach to freedom of speech explains the first amendment protecting only against state action and not by "private forms of interference," like companies.  (pg. 109)    According to her approach, the thinker-based view supports the moral right against both private and public censorship, however, she argues that there is a reason to make "protection against public censorship discrete." (pg. 109) Because the state is given so much power and influence, the potential threat given by the state is greater than the threat posed by various private sources. Furthermore, she argues that there may be justifiable reasons that "voluntary private association" can restrict freedoms of speech or "exclude members." (pg. 109) However, in certa...

  Shiffrin’s third chapter discusses the “thinker-based” approach to freedom of speech. This is different from the listener-based and speaker-based approach that tend to exclude specific valuable speech and expression. While her piece touches upon the issue in various court cases and, more specifically, the last section on sexuality, I wish to explore further Shiffrin’s argument in relation to the LGBT+ community. While the account seems to contradict itself, or at least place bounds on the freedom of sexuality and expression, Shiffrin’s basic argument can be used to motivate the interest the government has in normalizing gay relationships.      Shiffrin states that speech and mutual discourse “are essential for our mutual flourishing” and that the right of expression is essential in maintaining such an environment (79). Freedom of speech allows for a “functioning government of equals” and, therefore, equality for those who have different sexualities (81). External...

 After establishing that lying and deception undermine epistemic certainty and inhibit our ability to engage in cooperative moral relations, Seana Shriffin turns to the issue of free speech. She starts by noting that the prohibitions on lying and deception do little on their own; additionally they must “serve as background complements within an environment that permits and encourages freedom of thought and communication.” (Shiffrin 80). This environment plays a crucial role in the development of the mind and the communication of moral duties necessary to govern.   Shriffin emphasizes a speaker-based approach to freedom of speech, which considers the interests of individuals as thinkers with rational, emotional, moral, and perceptual capacities (and more). The exercise and possession of those capacities make as who we are, our identity. Free speech is necessary for the realization of those capacities. To fully develop as rational beings we must be able to express the conten...

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. Howeve...