Zuckert: insoluble free speech

            This is Phil Beaver’s biased interpretation of Michael P. Zuckert’s essay, “The Insoluble Problem of Free Speech,” National Affairs, No. 37, Fall 2018; https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-insoluble-problem-of-free-speech. My bias promotes the agreement to develop civic self-discipline that is offered in the U.S. preamble.

Free speech is always controversial, but it is not an insoluble problem for the self-reliant individual in the U.S. However, in the U.S., the left factions and the right factions seem to have swapped roles, the right now extolling free speech.

After the 1949 Kinsey reports, conservatives resisted libertarianism, especially pornography and alien propaganda. Today, the left resists any speech that favors conservatism of any kind. The current issue is amply discussed, but Zuckert’s article would address the basic reasons for speech controversy for the limited applications he selected.

Speech has three aspects: thought, expression, and consequences (coercion, discovery, liability). A thought is private but its expression and the consequences can draw public attention. The attention may be positive if most thought pursues the-objective-truth. Mendacity begs woe.

John Stuart Mill’s no-harm principle justifies legislation, for example, against yelling “fire!” in a crowded place. Second, his “fairness principle” justifies taxation and military-service obligations.

In some political regimes, the rulers or a cause such as a religion are protected from negative speech. They claim to possess the-objective-truth rendering debate unnecessary. Socrates died under religious accusations he had disproved in court; the jury of 500 found him guilty anyway. In the U.S., “freedom of religion” squelches public development of civic integrity.

Thought cannot be constrained; free speech allows discovery, perhaps of the speaker’s criminal intentions; but only consequences may be dealt with, unfortunately sometimes after the incident. Factions treat these issues differently, sometimes arbitrarily. Consideration of authority to constrain is necessary. ”In a liberal society like America, there is a presumption in favor of liberty of action as well as of thought,” resists the fact that America is a representative republic under the rule of statutory law.

May speech be considered differently depending upon setting such as on campus, in corporations, or in the family? (Also, for a U.S. president, in the military, in the Church, in a radical society, among those who believe in crime, and so on?)

Education is a vehicle for exploring the-objective-truth. Freedom of expression is essential to discovery, and campuses should provide security. Part of education is to learn to avoid alienation over opinion. That is, individual opinion is not the-objective-truth. Students may be encouraged and coached to consider an opposing opinion rather than the person who holds the opinion. Students, throughout life, may collaborate to discover the-objective-truth, leaving how to individually use the discovery to private, responsible preferences.

Zuckert imposes a traditional view of the family, and I oppose his arguments. Parents are obliged to bond for life before starting a family. Their progeny are persons, too. Each child has the daunting task to transition during about three decades from feral infant to young adult with the understanding and intent to live a complete human life. The parents appreciate each child and his or her preparation for a future the parents cannot imagine. The parents and children, the family, collaborates to prosper and to aid a better future for the parents’ grandchildren and beyond. If a majority of people accept the U.S. preamble’s goal “and our Posterity” with a capital “P”, a better future is possible. In a civic culture, the family discusses all topics of interest, including LGBT lifestyles with an intent to understand the-objective-truth, whatever it may be. A youth who is informed and comfortable with family conversation is ready for university life. Zuckert seems to advocate children being dumped into a confused world with home-developed naiveté.

Corporations supply needed or wanted goods or services in a capitalist system that requires managers to comply with the law and employees to submit to management or lose employment. An employee’s arbitrary imposition of a social issue beyond the work environment is grounds for discharge. In other words, the employee may have a one-time platform for social speech or a job, but not both free speech and a job. These corporate requirements are expected by the individual who pursues the-objective-truth. In other words, they are consequences of the-objective-truth rather than corporate policy and thus not peculiar to organizations.

The U.S. still struggles to overcome British colonization. The case of “seditious libel” came from British tradition and is one case of U.S. independence from colonial influence. “In 1798, the federal government passed the first national sedition law, aimed at protecting federal authorities from the criticism they had been receiving from the Democratic-Republican Party (led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison). [Madison argued that the] ability to criticize those in power is essential to democratic politics [and the] point of free and robust political exchange is to discover truths about matters relevant to governance.”

Speech may be evaluated respecting the pursuit of the-objective-truth in any institution. In colleges, collaboration to discover the-objective-truth must be unfettered. In the family, the parents cannot imagine the future their children and grandchildren face and therefore cannot risk expressing anything less than the-objective-truth. In corporations, economic viability is paramount. In government, tradition must be dealt with regardless of willful politicians and the clergymen who are in partnership with them. (In England and colonial America under British control, the clergy-politician partnership in Parliament is constitutional, whereas in America the unconstitutional tradition needs reform.)

Fellow citizens need not fear free speech to or from anyone as long as most individuals remain self-reliant. Self-reliance is possible with the focus on the-objective-truth. I do not agree with Zuckert’s claim that the challenge of free speech is insoluble.

Copyright©2018 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.