The Argument from Truth
October 12, 2007 by adifferentvoice
The argument goes that free speech is only worth preserving and protecting if it produces something worth achieving. That something is often “Truth”.
Professor of the First Amendment at Harvard University, Frederick Schauer argues that:
“Just as Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ will ensure that the best products emerge from free competition, so too will an invisible hand ensure that the best ideas emerge when all opinions are permitted freely to compete”.
Not only will the best ideas emerge in such an environment, but competition will ensure that, from those best ideas, the truest ideas will win acceptance by the largest sector of society.
Truth is understood here in its widest sense - not just as an absolute certainty which may be known a priori (such as 2+2=4 or ‘all bachelors are unmarried’), but also as a truth which can only be known a posteriori or from experience (such as ‘the sun will rise every morning’) and as a truth which is no more than a normative or ethical statement (such as ‘ killing people is wrong’). It is a theory which appeals to the relativist more than to the believer.
Conceived thus, free speech is not an end in itself, but only a means to an end. It becomes the process by which truth is obtained and as such is worth protecting - the Free Speech Principle.
The Free Speech Principle can only be justified if it can be shown that Truth does indeed make itself known from the competition of ideas. In the “marketplace of ideas” we, hopefully, will adopt rationally the belief that is most likely to be true, the belief that has survived attacks from other competing beliefs.
Schauer worries that this optimism is misplaced because unless Truth has some intrinsic quality which makes it stand out from Falsity, there seems to be no logical reason why Truth should be chosen above falsehoods. While it may be the case that rationality in an academic environment is capable of persuasively producing truth
“history provides too many examples of falsity triumphant over truth to justify the assertion that truth will inevitably prevail”
and, moreover “generally, but not always, the expression of unsound opinion causes greater harm than the expression of sound opinions”. Equally, where there is no opportunity to consider many different opinions, the argument from truth for a Free Speech Principle fails.
Different values may be given to the Free Speech Principle. It may be accorded supremacy so that no other principle can trump it. The “strong” version of the principle affords “Truth” a position that is unassailable.
Alternatively, in the “weak” version, the principle may be weighed against the potential harm that the free speech may cause, or against other principles. This second weak version allows for the possibility that free speech may be suppressed.
The weak view of free speech will weigh up the harm of allowing the expression of a pro-Nazi view and, for example, the rights of others not to be offended, and may conclude that there is no benefit to truth that is worth protecting.
An alternative argument for free speech is from democracy - that we all have an equal right to say what we want to say, irrespective of the merits of its content and without regard to the truth. Once again, there may be a “strong” version, and a “weak” version.
The European Court of Human Rights in a famous judgment, Handyside, said this:
“Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a [democratic] society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man … it is applicable not only to “information” and “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”.”
But it is a weak view, because not only are there are exceptions, but other rights (than free speech) will trump a claim to have the right to speak freely. Exceptions include instances where it is reasonable to suppress free speech for national security reasons, for the prevention of crime, or for the protection of the reputation or the rights of other people. UK case law shows that other rights - such as the right to a private and family life - may take precedence over the free speech right.
Which brings me back to An Inconvenient Truth …
The argument seems to be that the *government* should allow free speech because it cannot be trusted to judge between what is true and what is false. If you accept that, it also seems that the government can’t be trusted to judge what speech should be protected by free speech and what speech shouldn’t.
There’s a difference, though, between what the government allows and what society accepts. Someone, for example, making arguments in favor of human sacrifice should be allowed to do so by the government, but that doesn’t mean people in general should listen to them… they just shouldn’t be allowed to do violence to them. The government itself shouldn’t be allowed to stop people from saying *anything*… if you allow the government to block speech about supposed ‘national security reasons’ or ‘the prevention of crime’ (what sort of mere speech would call for suppression for those reasons?), then you give the government the power to judge what needs to be suppressed for those reasons, which is basically the same as saying the government can only allow that speech which it wants to allow. Which is the same as saying there’s no free speech, only you’re lying about that and saying there is.
Is there a right to a private and family life protected from scandal? I don’t think so, at least not one that the government should protect… it would be ideal, of course, if society didn’t encourage people revealing that sort of information. Then it wouldn’t happen, because it wouldn’t benefit the revealer to do so.
A worthwhile question is whether statements that are obviously lies should be allowed. If a statement can be proven false, and shown to have been said maliciously, that does seem like it should be a crime - because the whole point of free speech is to seek the truth, and something that is clearly false doesn’t benefit society by being proclaimed. But I’m not sure we want the government making decisions of that nature either; the standards for falsity would have to be pretty darn high, at least.
Turin, I think the situation, here at least, is different from the one which you describe. It is the courts, not the government, which ultimately makes the decision about when free speech can be denied. The governing principle here is generally typically liberal - that everything is allowed unless it is forbidden. Any prohibition by government can be challenged by way of judicial review, and thus supervised by a judge. British judges have a good reputation for independence from the executive, though they are as conservative as judges everywhere and sometimes get it wrong. Lord Hoffmann led a panel of judges in the House of Lords (our supreme court) to a decision upholding a ban on televised images of aborted foetuses as part of an election broadcast. Many people think he (they) got it wrong. I think the party concerned, the Pro-Life Alliance, would have argued their right to free speech both from truth and from democracy.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, and good luck with college!
A good and thoughtful essay. I take exception to only one concept, that of the “purity” of the “free enterprise” and “free” speech. As an example of the former, dwindling fish stocks most certainly generate ever more efficient trawlers, but “free” enterprise does nothing to improve the real problem. Broadcasting, which allows certain companies a monopoly of a public resource - the radio frequency spectrum - has been famously described as “a licence to print money”, by a television company boss, no less.
So, whilst I have the right - and should excercise that right - to stand on my soap box, the television companies heve a voice so much louder than mine, by courtesy of a publicly-granted monopoly, that my (naturally) vastly superior ideas are drowned out. Further impurity is introduced by “paid” speech. Whilst most British newspapers and television stations do have fair editorial integrity, this is not so in the US. How often have you seen a glowing review of a new car with an advertisement for that model on the facing page? If more proof is needed, just look at the consumer help columns. A problem with a product or service that an individual has suffered for months is commonly resolved in short order by a ‘phone call from the consumer columnist. Businesses are not interested in the satisfaction of the customer, nor do they fear the poor opinion of an individual, but jump immediately to redeem themselves when a big mouth is involved. Neither do they hesitate to pull advertising revenue from unfriendly media outlets.
I am neutral on the aborted foetus issue. Ideally, the shock value would be debated out, and the poor taste would reflect on the advertiser. In the short time of a political campaign, this may not be possible. There is little redress against lies in politics. One particularly egregious example has even entered the lexicon - swiftboating. Some restraint is excercised by the strong party system in the UK, but the looser party affiliation in the US encourages individuals to campaign negatively.
The free exchange of ideas is a noble principle, and I cannot propose a better. But to work well, vested interests must be quieted and a sceptical public encouraged. Maybe truth and good ideas do eventually prevail, but they need our help if they are not to be too late!
David, thank you for taking the time to write this. I wrote the piece about free speech before I was involved in a free speech fireball just before Christmas which made the difference between US and UK traditions very clear to me. I felt quite badly burned. I’ve almost finished another post which better represents my views now. I suppose I’ve become very cynical about the value of a strong idea of “free speech”. Those who would campaign for it when it suits them to say offensive things (often anonymously), voluntarily censor themselves at other times when it suits them, when they want others to think well of them.