Purpose of Expression

The codified boundaries of expression are deterministic of whether a society should be considered democratic. One should be free to criticize absent fear of censorship or persecution. It is essential for promoting political debate, fostering innovation, and supporting individual liberty. However, in balancing the right to free speech with societal needs, limits are often placed on expression, such as laws against hate speech, defamation, or incitement to violence. Free speech thus serves both as a vehicle for personal and collective expression and a tool for holding power to account, while challenging us to consider the boundaries of speech.

Key Question: To what extent does free speech fulfill its role in advancing democracy while considering the risk that certain types of speech can create?

Perspectives

Perspective 1 – Excerpt from John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argues that free speech is essential for the pursuit of truth. According to Mill, the free exchange of ideas, even when they are controversial or offensive, is necessary for the discovery of truth, as suppressing speech limits society’s ability to weigh different perspectives. Mill asserts that "if all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." The purpose of free speech, in this view, is to allow the continuous challenge of ideas, which strengthens intellectual and societal growth.

Perspective 2 – Excerpt from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 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." This document positions free speech as a fundamental human right essential for individual autonomy and participation in civic life. Its inclusion in international human rights law underscores the idea that free speech is critical for promoting transparency, accountability, and the protection of human dignity across the globe.

Perspective 3 – Excerpt from the Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) Supreme Court Decision In the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court set a legal precedent regarding the limits of free speech. The Court ruled that speech can only be restricted if it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action." This decision protects speech that may be controversial or offensive, as long as it does not incite immediate violence or illegal actions. The ruling illustrates how legal frameworks surrounding free speech in democratic societies seek to balance the protection of expression with the prevention of social harm.

Perspective 4 – Excerpt from The Harm in Hate Speech by Jeremy Waldron In The Harm in Hate Speech, legal philosopher Jeremy Waldron explores the limitations of free speech, particularly concerning speech that harms vulnerable groups. Waldron argues that hate speech undermines the dignity and social standing of individuals, particularly those who are marginalized. While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, Waldron contends that society must place limits on speech that inflicts harm by fostering discrimination or violence. His work suggests that while free speech is essential for democratic discourse, it should not come at the cost of social cohesion or the dignity of individuals.