|
|
of social forces and to that degree, as an inevitable aspect of the human social condition that does not necessarily require independent philosophical justification. Beyond justifying freedom of expression, a sociological approach furnishes an explanation for the reasons that the otherwise unfettered philosophical arguments for free speech must be tempered by other social values. Application of sociological theory can also lead to some startling results such as why freedom of speech in some societies not only is––but possibly should be––expected to be less than in others. While some philosophers in the tradition of John Stuart Mill may argue for unfettered freedom of speech, sociological theory can rationally insist that this individual freedom can be a destructive force unless it is interpreted within the parameters of healthy social existence. In other words, unrestricted freedom of expression may be fine for Robinson Crusoe living on his island, but once he meets up with his compatriot Friday, their collective happiness and well-being invoke values separate and distinct from what is required for the individual.
Freedom of speech or freedom of expression1 has been justified and explained by notable political and legal philosophers including John Locke, Benedict Spinoza, John Milton, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, Alexander Meiklejohn, Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Thomas Emerson, and more recently by Lee Bollinger, Alan Haworth, Cass Sundstein, Eric Barendt, C Edwin Baker, Steven Heyman, Robert Hargreaves, Frederick Schauer, Owen Fiss, Anthony Lewis, Steven Shiffrin, Rodney Smolla, Ronald Dworkin, and many others of similar stature. These philosophers and legal scholars developed many convincing arguments why freedom of speech is desirable for individual development and satisfaction. The philosophers have tended to develop highly abstract normative concepts while legal scholars have tended to address free speech as something derived from constitutional and common law.2
Understanding freedom of speech in as many theoretical perspectives as possible plays a role in evaluating acceptable limitations. Governments are constantly proposing restrictions on freedom of speech through