WHAT SHOULDN’T WE SAY?
THE LIMITS OF FREE SPEECH
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
6 - 7:30 p.m.
Museum of Northern Arizona
Facilitated by: Dr. Jeff Downard, NAU Department of Philosophy
AGENDA
6:00 p.m
Welcome and Introduction
Dr. Heidi Wayment, Chair of Psychological Sciences and Director of the
Compassion Project
6:15 p.m.
Community Discussion
Dr. Jeff Downard, NAU Department of Philosophy
1. What limits, if any, should there be on free speech?
2. Why do we value free speech? And what competing values, if any, justify
limiting it?
3. What place, if any, should hate speech have in a democratic society?
4. How should our local community respond to speech we deem harmful or
offensive? What values support such responses?
7:20 p.m.
Closing Questions and Recap of Discussion
Special thanks to our partners and venue hosts!
What limits, if any, should there be on free speech?
FREE SPEECH can be defined as unrestrained speech. Many cases raise
questions about the limits of free speech. Here are some to consider:
Case 1:
Yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater is illegal in the US. In the 1919 Supreme
Court decision Schenck v United States, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote,
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting
fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words
used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and
present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to
prevent .”
Case 2:
The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo publishes cartoons mocking religious
figures. The cartoons are offensive to many. Recently the magazine’s staff was
attacked by two brothers who were offended, Cherif and Said Kouachi. In response,
many people have shown support for the magazine with the phrase “Je suis
Charlie” (I am Charlie). However, others have criticized the magazine for going too
far. For example, one of the magazine’s founders recently accused its slain editor,
Stéphane Charbonnier, of “dragging the team” to their deaths by releasing
increasingly provocative cartoons.
Case 3:
In 2002 Joseph Fredrick of Alaska displayed a 14-foot banner reading “Bong Hits 4
Jesus” outside his high school. The banner was confiscated and Fredrick was
suspended for 10 days for promoting illegal drug use, a violation of school policy.
Fredrick later sued claiming his First Amendment rights had been infringed.
Translation for Charlie Hebdo cover from November 3, 2011:
“100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter!”
3
Why do we value free speech? And what competing values,
if any, justify limiting it?
In general, free speech is weighed against values concerning libel, slander,
pornography, safety, hate, and equality of expression (when limiting one voice allows
for another to speak).
In On Liberty John Stuart Mill, a Victorian philosopher, endorsed a strong form of free
speech:
“...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical
conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered...If all mankind minus one
were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be
no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be
justified in silencing mankind” (1978 [1859], 15-16).
Mill highlights physical harm as the only value that should be used to limit free
speech (or any other freedom).
HARM PRIMCIPLE
“...the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a
civilized community, against his will, is to prevent [illegitimate] harm to others.” (Mill
1978, 9)
Illegitimate harms violate people’s rights.
In response to Mill, the philosopher Joel Feinberg argues that the Harm Principle
allows for too much free speech. He proposes instead:
OFFENSE PRINCIPLE
“...it is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would
probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense...to persons other than the
actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end” (Feinberg 1985, 1).
Because people are offended by different things, applying the Offense Principle can be
difficult.
Contextual factors matter, including speakers’ motives,
number of people offended, and intensity of offense.
4
What place, if any, should hate speech have in a
democratic society?
HATE SPEECH is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race,
color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.
Most democratic countries have laws prohibiting or limiting hate speech. These
include:
FRANCE
GERMANY
CANADA
POLAND
HUNGARY
MEXICO
In the U.S., by contrast, the First Amendment protects hate speech and other offensive
speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that engaging in hateful thoughts and speech
are legal.

Hateful actions that cause physical harm, on the other hand, are not protected,
even in the U.S .
Adam Gopnik of the New York Times writes, “The world on the whole regards our
approach [in the U.S.] as uncivilized and confused about the significant distinctions that
are necessary for truly free speech .” According to Gopnik, most of the world thinks that
Americans overlook important harms and costs of allowing as much freedom of speech as
we do.
“I despise what you say, but will defend to the death your
right to say it.”
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire (1906)
“What people can say can cause injury, can disclose
private information, can disclose harmful public
information. It’s not a free zone where you can do
anything because nothing matters. Speech matters.”
- Tim Scanlon (2008)
5
How should our local community respond to speech we deem
harmful or offensive? What values support such responses?
How should we respond to speech in our communities we deem harmful, offensive, demeaning or otherwise problematic? Should members of our local
community enforce limits on free speech beyond those imposed by the law? If
so, how and why?
Recent Case from Northern Arizona:
On December 28, 2014 members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested gay
marriage and remarriage after divorce.
Many residents simply ignored the protestors.
About 50 locals formed a counter-protest with signs that read, for example,
“God hates hate” (see photo).
The A rizona Daily Sun chose not to cover the event as news. In a subsequent
editorial, the Daily Sun explained that to do so could aid the Westboro Baptist
members’ desire for publicity . The editors also judged the event not to be
newsworthy.
The NAU, Lumberjack, by contrast, ran a story covering the protest and
counter-protest
Credit: (NAU Lumberjack/Ashleigh Vance)
6
HOT TOPICS CAFÉ COMMUNITY COMMITTEE
The “hot topics” in the Hot Topics Cafés are selected by community members that represent
diverse constituencies and viewpoints. We thank our committee for their participation.
*Voted on Spring, 2015 “Hot Topics.”
Flagstaff & Winslow
Frankie Beeseley, Program Coordinator, Friends
of Flagstaff’s Future
*Joe Boles, Professor Emeritus, NAU College of
Arts and Letters
*Jean Malecki-Friedland, MD, MPH; County
Director and Chief Medical Professor andChair,
Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Miami
Miller School of Medicine; Co-Founder: The
Compassion Project
Jacque Gencarelle, Northern Arizona Behavioral
Health Association
*Barbara Hickman, Superintendent, Flagstaff
Unified School District
Sherman Stephens, Flagstaff Community
Craig Van Slyke, Dean, T he W .A . Franke
College of Business
*Michael Vincent, Dean, NAU College of Arts
and Letters
NAU's Philosophy in the Public
Interest is non partisan and does not
endorse any position with respect to
the issues we discuss. Philosophy in
the Public Interest is a neutral
convener for civil discourse.
Sedona & the Verde Valley
*Karen Daines, Assistant City Manager, Sedona
Paul Friedman, Sedona Citizens for Civil Dialogue
*Kate Hawkes, Producing A rtistic Director, R ed
Earth Theatre
Darrin Karuzas, Principal, Sedona Red Rock High
School
*Sandy Moriarty, Sedona Mayor
Tom O’Halleran, Keep Sedona Beautiful; Board
Member, Verde River Basin Partnership
*Judy Reddington, Arts and Letters Advisory
Council, NAU; Board Member, Museum of Northern
Arizona; Board Director, Sedona International Film
Festival
*Steve Segner, Owner, El Portal; Chair, Lodging
Council, Sedona Chamber of Commerce
Patricia Lowell, Sedona Public L ibrary, proxy for:
Virginia Volkman, Director, Sedona Public Library
Jessica Williamson, Sedona City Council
Ex officio
Andrea Houchard, NAU Philosophy in the Public
Interest
*Jona Vance, NAU Department of Philosophy
Robin Weeks, Osher Lifelong Learning Institute,
Yavapai College, Sedona Center
Randy Wilson, A rizona Daily Sun
NEXT FLAGSTAFF HOT TOPICS CAFÉ:
Environmental Change and Emerging
Pandemics
Contact PPI
928-523-8339
[email protected]
nau.edu/ppi
Sources
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11346641/
Charlie-Hebdo-founder-says-slain-editor-dragged-team-to-their-deaths.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/
students_in_action/debate_hate.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/two-views-speech
http://www.jackcentral.org/gallery/the-westboro-baptist-church-visitsflagstaff---dec/collection_d8ff2472-8ecb-11e4-9fd8-33ae24e4714e.html
http://azdailysun.com/news/opinion/editors-column/between-the-lines-canyou-defend-uncivil-speech-if-you/article_a571a306-1b58-5db3-b66a8e5a986d7795.html
Warburton, Nigel. Free Speech A Very Short Introduction. N.p.: n.p., 2009.
Print.
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Ed. Alan S. Kahan. N.p.: n.p., 2008. Print.
Thursday, February 26
3 - 4:30 p.m.
Museum of Northern Arizona