|
|
Although this book makes substantial reference to social theory, it is not a work intended for sociologists who might find the reliance on Durkheim somewhat quaint or dated nor is it intended as a contribution to sociological research. The text is more directed to members of the legal community and philosophers who are interested in freedom of expression and its justifications. Durkheim was selected because his classical theories are of continuing relevance and clearly stated and because his theory concerning social division of labour lends itself to being applied to freedom of expression.
There are constant social and political tensions calling for the expansion or contraction of rights to free expression. As centralised electronic data gathering of personal information expands, the threat to privacy begins to make even those of us not prone to conspiracy theories begin to border on paranoia. On one hand, acknowledging that the right to privacy is also a fundamental human right, freedom of expression cannot be without limits. On the other hand, in light of restrictions on speech as seen in many countries in the post 9/11 environment, caution must be taken in thinking that the need for security overcomes the right to freedom of expression. This discussion does not lend itself to easy answers because security, privacy, and freedom of speech are all matters of legitimate concern. As US Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg observed in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (372 US 144, 161 [1963]), “while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact.” A goal of this book is to offer a dispassionate explanation for the proposition that freedom of expression and appropriate limitations are essential to the existence and survival of large complex societies and that unfettered rights pose as great a societal peril as excessive restrictions.
My ambition is not to congest the free speech debate even further but rather to provide an intellectual mechanism for better reconciling freedom of speech with social values. While the actual text reflects research that I have conducted over the past five years, the underlying thought cannot be separated from the accumulated knowledge garnered from nearly forty