Complaints about Trump Twitter ban aside, there is no absolute right to free speech – The Fayetteville Observer

Richard A.S. Hall| The Fayetteville Observer

Some have argued that Trumps recent inflammatory speech inciting an insurrection is Constitutionally protected by the First Amendment an argument that might resurface when Trumps impeachment by the House goes to the Senate for trial) but it is not. Still others have claimed that Facebooks and Twitters closing Trumps accounts infringes his right to free speech it does not.

Let me explain.

The right of freedom of speech is unquestionably the sine qua non for a flourishing academy and democracy and thus highly prized by any civilized society. It is inscribed in the First Amendment as, Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

More: Letter: I supported Trump, but now is a time to unite

However, free speech is not an unqualified right. There are certain kinds of speech proscribed by law and justifiably so. These include libel, perjury, blackmail, incitement to riot and other such threats to public order and security. The right of free speech is justified by its political value in preserving a democratic polity and by its intellectual value in advancing the cause of truth to which, for example, the scientific community is devoted.

What, then, justifies restrictions on free speech such as the laws forbidding libel and incitements to riot? It is that it actually or potentially harms others. This justification, then, is now known as the harm principle.

Thomas Jefferson anticipated it in his advocacy of the right of freedom of religion: The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

More: Authentic religion does not call for churches reopening in a pandemic

John Stuart Mill articulated it more fully in his classic On Liberty (a magisterial defense of free speech that should be required reading for Americans): the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

Back now to the two cases with which I began, namely, Trumps incendiary speech igniting an insurrection, and Facebooks suspension and Twitters cancellation of his accounts with them. With respect to the first: Trumps speech incited a riot worse, an insurrectionary riot.

Incitement to riot violates the harm principle and U.S. federal law, and is thereby indictable. Hence, his speech is not Constitutionally protected free speech. As to the second case: If Trumps statements on Facebook and Twitter pose a threat to public order and security in the form of riots, in violation of the harm principle and federal law, then they are not protected by the First Amendment. If Facebook and Twitter were to allow him to voice his threats to the public peace, they would be complicit in his malfeasance. Their decisions to close Trumps accounts are not an infringement of his right of free speech.

More: Myron B. Pitts: 8 times Biden, Obama and others condemned Black Lives Matter violence

Let me conclude by strongly affirming my own commitment to the maximization of free speech as an indefeasible human right. However, when its exercise conflicts with other such rights, namely the publics right to safety and security, then it should give way to the latter.

Lest anyone complain that restrictions on their harmful speech violates their First Amendment Right, let them ask themselves this question: Does my speech advance the cause of justice and truth? If they cannot answer affirmatively, then they have no grounds for complaint.

According to the late nineteenth-century English philosopher, Thomas H. Green, the true index of a societys freedom is the extent to which its citizens have the ability and opportunity to realize the best in themselves and others: When we measure the progress of a society by its growth in freedom, we measure it by the increasing development and exercise on the whole of these powers of contributing to social good with which we believe the members of the society to be endowed; in short, by the greater power on the part of the citizens as a body to make the most and best of themselves.

Nothing less than this is the very freedom that speech should promote, thereby justifying its own status as an indefeasible right.

Richard A. S. Hall is a professor of philosophy at Fayetteville State University.

Support local journalism with a subscription to The Fayetteville Observer. Click the subscribe link at the top of this article.

Continued here:
Complaints about Trump Twitter ban aside, there is no absolute right to free speech - The Fayetteville Observer