Speech and Press
To what degree should written and spoken words be legally protected? How should freedoms of speech and press be protected? To whom should these rights be granted? When is it acceptable for the government to restrict what can be said or printed? When should individuals or businesses be able to impose restrictions?
These arguments are sorted from most- to least- restrictive:
These arguments are sorted from most- to least- restrictive:
Restrict speech that defames or incites action.
The government should generally protect freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but, for the sake of practicality, speech loses it’s immunity when it leads people to actions that cause problems (for instance, hate speech or inciting terrorism) or when it defames a person who is not in a position to defend themselves (libel and slander). Restriction in these cases is acceptable because the alternatives are crime and defamation, which is unacceptable.
The government should generally protect freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but, for the sake of practicality, speech loses it’s immunity when it leads people to actions that cause problems (for instance, hate speech or inciting terrorism) or when it defames a person who is not in a position to defend themselves (libel and slander). Restriction in these cases is acceptable because the alternatives are crime and defamation, which is unacceptable.
Let anything be said, and the best ideas will win out
The government should always, as a matter of principle, avoid regulating the spoken and written word. It is far more effective (and more in line with the constitution) to allow all ideas to be presented, and let the best ideas win out. This is true even in cases such as libel and slander. The same idea applies to the regulation of speech by media outlets, although that is a matter to be taken up with the media outlets themselves, not by the government.
The government should always, as a matter of principle, avoid regulating the spoken and written word. It is far more effective (and more in line with the constitution) to allow all ideas to be presented, and let the best ideas win out. This is true even in cases such as libel and slander. The same idea applies to the regulation of speech by media outlets, although that is a matter to be taken up with the media outlets themselves, not by the government.
: |