The issue of free speech has always been a heated one. Although autonomy and freedom of expression have always been a big part of people's identity, rarely is it a topic that is discussed in depth. It is taken for granted, for instance, that there are no limitations on free speech, but this is incoherent a model for any freedom. Left to its own devices, without limitations, such a model of freedom would allow citizens to create limitations on other citizens (after all, they are free to do anything) and this would obviously not be a coherent model (what of those that have limitations imposed upon them?).

With the above in mind, the definition of free speech I am currently working with (one must always carefully define one's terms) is this: the freedom to express, through art, literature, or voice, any belief, no matter the opinions of others in society-- so long as said belief does not place limitations on the ability of any other person to express his or her belief. This definition is restrictive because it must be. In order to know what I am arguing for, I must set down what the ideal might be, and the ideal for free speech should always be a society of people unafraid to voice their opinions. This is not only conducive of change toward progress-- how can serfdoms gain power if they are never allowed to speak?-- but also conducive toward correction. This second point is integral to the growth and maturation of individuals. If no one can tell us when we can be proven wrong, we are just as ignorant as if we were never allowed to speak in the first place.

This model places restrictions on what people can and cannot do. I stress 'do' because one must recognize that free speech is not tantamount to free action. Speech itself can turn into action the minute it steps away from knowledge and moves toward roadblocking. Anyone familiar with politics has seen speech turned into this: debates that do not allow any one speaker to finish his or her speech are no longer debates of speech but of actions. Cutting off people's sentences, effectively placing limitations on a person's ability to return their opinion, or otherwise "shutting up" people is an insult to the foundations of free speech, and one that occurs at a surprising rate in our society.

Limitations of Free Speech: (Ab)uses

With this in mind, one must ask the question, "what precisely is philosophically protected by a vow of free speech?" For instance, are hate-speeches protected philosophically-- I claim no authority for legality-- under the rights of free speech? The easy answer is "yes". If not allowed to voice an opinion, even if it is 'wrong' or 'hate-filled', people will never be called upon to be responsible for their beliefs. In other words, if I believe that 2+2=5, but am never called on it, I will continue to believe in the false mathematics much to the detriment of my understanding. However, if I am not only allowed to speak my belief (even if wrong), then I allow others to speak theirs (that 2+2=4). A dialogue ensues, and for better or worse, each side of the argument has an opportunity to express their perspectives.

However, I said this was the 'easy' answer. That is because one must also remember that speech that impairs the ability to speak in others is not considered 'free speech', and thus not protected under that flag. Hate-speech often attempts to impair the authority and voice of others; for instance, in the history of racism, an attempt at scientifically proving the "inferiority" of a race undermines any authority a race has. After all, if anyone under said race attempts to offer any evidence or opinion to the contrary, they can be 'debunked' based on their inferiority! This system does not encourage freedom, nor is it a chance for the speakers on either side to grow. This is another example of how speech can turn into action.

But can speech and action be separated? This is a more difficult question, and one which might not be possible to answer. Speech itself is a political action. "I will be heard," anyone who speaks (in any manner) announces, and this is where the model of speech as separate from action breaks down and needs to be elaborated upon.

This is where legality and philosophy cannot intersect. The reason is because the line between speech as voice and speech as action is divided by intention of the speaker. This can never be proven or known concretely, and thus can never be legislated, but a person can be said to be operating under the positive model of free speech if (s)he is said to have the intentions of her own beliefs at heart, and not the limitations of another. If someone truly believes in eugenics, they have a right to speak their mind, no matter how controversial. However, if someone believes in eugenics but wishes others to "keep quiet" about their arguments against such racism, their intentions are operating under a restrictive-speech model, which can be defined. Restrictive speech: when speech is used as a roadblock to the speech of another; when one person's voice attempts to drown out another.

Restrictive-Speech

The intentions people have toward each action remain implicit in their actions, and can never be upgraded to 'explicit'. Though we can have an inclination toward people's intentions-- often with more accuracy than they have for themselves-- by observing them, we can never truly know, and this places restrictions on what we can, ourselves, attack under the rubric of restrictive-speech. we cannot, for instance, attack the rights of people to speak, but we cannot allow other people to attempt to speak over others. That would be placing the rights of one person above another-- namely, the person with the loudest voice would 'win' their rights.

This can be protected only by allowing people to speak, and by giving fortification to minority-voice. While such fortification might include strengthening an opinion we believe in, it also must, in consistency, affect directly the voices and opinions we disagree with. In order for me to be able to speak against eugenics, someone must be able to speak for it. To restrict one for the sake of protecting the rights of a 'minority speaker' whose voice might be overcome is not a proper protection, but a restrictive and negative one. Rather, it would be in my best interest to support the minority voice so that it might not be lost in so much linguistic rubble.

The role of the minority voice is one which, by definition, is unpopular either by virtue of its belief or by a lack of support. A voice can be said to be in minority if it is shown little authority or support. That said, a voice can be driven into minority (through the restrictive-speech of another) or it can be placed into rightful minority (by virtue of its restrictions itself). Thus, a person who believes against eugenics, for instance, can be surrounded by eugenic supporters, and in this environment, the anti-eugenics supporter would be a minority. Or, similarly, a member of a racist organization can be surrounded by anti-racists, and in this case, the racist organizational voice would be the minority.

This is a long-winded way of saying that there are some opinions simply worth more than others. This is true of any open-source organization, and is why (at least in the computer-world) administrators and moderators are necessary. The opinion, for instance, that my butt is a planet is not very worthy. However, the opinion that I am an important and significant member of my society would happen to prove a worthy one. So how does one judge the validity (worthiness) of an opinion?

Validity of Opinion

An opinion can actually be judged valid or worthy by at least some variables. One is its logical consistency. That is, an opinion that cannot remain logically consistent is at least less worthy than one that remains logically consistent. Thus, an opinion can be said to be more 'sound' than another. It is hard to say that the definition of 'planet' that our society embraces is consistent with my rump. I cannot say that there are many similarities between my backside and any other planet in general. While the definition of 'planet' has been under some crossfire because of its lack of explicitness, there still exists an aura of what it means in our society, with or without it being placed explicitly on paper. This is called 'tacit knowledge', one that we know but we do not necessarily know that we know, and thus one that we would be hard-pressed to define. We do not know exactly how to define planet, but we know roughly what serves as a planet. Only in extreme cases (for instance, distance from sun, size, etc) is this definition questioned. My ass is on the extremity of size, as it does not compare to any other 'planet', not even the recently removed Pluto. If Pluto is too small to be a planet, than certainly my rump (at least I would hope) is too small.

Another manner in which an opinion can be judged valid or worthy is by the validity of its premisses. The eugenics debate is founded under the assumption that good genes, when only mixed with good genes, produce good or better genes. The reason this can be said to be faulty is because it undermines a basic biological principle: variability produces stronger genes. Thus, though the premisses might seem true, and while someone is perfectly within their rights for saying that they believe it to be true, biological principles attack the principles of the premiss. IF it were true that good genes, when mixed only with good genes, produce good or better genes, eugenics would have an argument. However, there is no evidence toward this premiss, and much evidence to the contrary.

That said, as pointed out earlier, though an opinion can be more valid or sound than another, this does not restrict one's right to freely speaking on behalf of these beliefs. My point is not from the standpoint of legislation or censorship, but one of defending the rights of others to utilize the tools of other disciplines to speak for themselves. Science is not only based on empirical principles, but can also be used to promote or denote validity of opinions. Science enjoys this special privilege because of its testament of objectivity. In other words, science tries not necessarily to speak 'over' anyone at all, but merely attempts to judge, based on nature's examples, what one would be inclined to believe had they observed what the scientist has observed. However, this principle can also be abused, as in the next example.

Abuses of Authority: Pretenses of Validity

As stated earlier, speech is said to be free when it allows the speech of others to be respected. A recent issue I have seen with this is on the Free Speech Coalition website, 'free' only in their obvious political/capital bias. Without going into their defense of pornography (how they can define sexual intercourse as 'speech' is beyond me), an article on their website falls under the rubric of restrictive speech.

I am speaking about their article on the definition of 'addiction to pornography'. In the article, a 'scientist' attempts to denounce any working definition of 'pornography addiction'. Without going into too much detail, this places a limitation on the speech of those seeking pyschological help for what they define as an addiction. Any attempt to strip the patient of the right to define their actions as an addiction would be tantamount to speaking loudly so that another person cannot be heard. Not only is this an insult to free speech, it is also an insult to the autonomy of the patient. One can only imagine a person feeling abused by their own subconscious compulsions going to a psychiatrist only to be turned down for help.

"You aren't addicted, sir. I will not help you."

Many such issues arise in the area of health care ethics. Although it is outside of the scope of this essay, suffice it to say that the issue of autonomy (in effect, the right to free speech for patients) also has restrictions. Autonomy is an issue with many sides, and is a hotly debated topic in current health care ethics. However, one should never assume that any potential restrictions ethically placed on autonomy decrease the right of a patient for care, especially within the realm of psychiatry/psychology or any health care concerning pain.

Autonomy and Pain: "It is all in your head"

One way in which health care and the rights of free speech intersect is that of pain therapy. I recently heard of a woman who had the gift of extreme pain during any attempt at anything resembling sexual intercourse. Proceeding to the doctor, the woman was turned down for any health care. The reason? The doctors that examined her believed the pain to be psychosematic. In other words, they believed it was "all in her head." Needless to say, this was received with intense anger and frustration. One of the main reasons? Considering all pain is a reaction to a pain-signal sent to your brain, ALL pain is 'in your head'. While they might have questioned the link between her pain and attempts at intercourse, they could not question the pain itself and thus were under obligation to find out precisely what was in fact causing the pain. While they had a right (based on their authority) to say that it was not what she thought it was, they could not tell her that she did not feel pain! That simply does not make sense! One either feels pain or they do not. Phantom pains are not called 'phantom' because they do not exist, they are called such because they relate to a part of the body that is not currently present. The signals of pain are still firing, its just the location of them that has been falsified by the body's misinterpretation.

So what does this all have to do with free speech? Well, to put it bluntly, the cases I have put forward are cases in which the definition of 'freedom of speech' is either being abused for the case of semantics (such as the 'free speech' of pornography) or abused by authority ('I tell you what to think, do not speak anything to me) and thus are being restrictive. I use these as examples of how free speech, if left without definition or restriction, can be so free as to restrict the speech of others.

Conclusions

In conclusion, free speech is a topic that all people would like to say they support. However, without any definition, the support is blindly placed. While this essay does not go under any pretense of a solution, free speech must never be used as an excuse to stifle the expressions of another. How one safe-guards against such abuses of free speech while staying within the statute of limitations of free speech is, again, beyond the scope of this essay. However, ignorance and complicity are never solutions to any issue. And thus, I hope readers of this essay move on with a sense that everyone must be able, for right or wrong, to speak their mind... including those whose voice often gets squashed under by more popular, more 'pretty' beliefs. Ugly or pretty, right or wrong, to ever grow as a society, we must foster a sense of ability in our speakers, an ability to speak not only on behalf of their beliefs, but on their own behalf.