Q&A: Thoughts Regarding Freedom of Speech (Following the Conversation with Jeremy Fogel)
Thoughts Regarding Freedom of Speech (Following the Conversation with Jeremy Fogel)
Question
First, I would like to thank you for your important work in all the areas in which you are involved; you contribute a great deal, and it is very much appreciated.
I watched the beginning of your conversation with Jeremy Fogel, and the discussion revolved around how much freedom of speech should be allowed. A highly manipulative person who succeeds in persuading others of harmful views can cause great damage, and great damage can also be caused by preventing views that are not to one’s liking.
I’m not getting here into the laws that the state should legislate, but rather into the question of what kinds of rules it would be advisable for our society, or for some other general society, to adopt regarding this issue.
I suggest the following perspective: first, there should be a distinction between the content and the speaker’s intention. For example, there is a difference between you writing about communist views and a communist missionary writing about them. If you present them, because your intention is not to destroy society but to strengthen it, presenting the ideas could serve as a kind of “vaccine,” or perhaps even lead to the internalization of relevant kernels of truth. But if a communist missionary comes whose goal is to dismantle the society to which he comes to proselytize, and if people do not have good enough defenses, irreversible damage could be caused.
Therefore, one may estimate that, broadly speaking, both a completely closed society and a completely open society are less good than a society that is closed with respect to who may express an opinion, but completely open with respect to the opinions that are presented.
Now there is also room to improve this. It is indeed important that members of society also have a more direct acquaintance with “unapproved” people (in terms of official approval), both because a large portion of them are potential allies and because with regard to the rest it is still worthwhile to “know the enemy,” and in any case there may be something to learn. But in order to avoid one society ultimately taking over another, one could propose the following rule:
*A person will be invited to speak before “our” audience only if it is as part of a debate with someone “approved” / “one of us,” and if that conversation will be presented to the audience of the visiting speaker, or a similar conversation will take place before the visiting speaker’s audience.* In other words, a communist will be invited to a conversation before an audience of N people only if immediately before or after that there is a conversation in which someone “from our side” speaks before an audience of approximately N people from the “other” side.
Answer
I oppose any restriction on freedom of speech. Only where there is an imminent danger of harm is there room to restrict it. Motives are entirely irrelevant to the matter. In a situation where there is danger, it should be restricted even if the motives are pure as snow; and in any other situation, it should not be restricted even if the motives are dark as night. For a similar argument about motives, see columns 295 and 353.
Discussion on Answer
If you enjoy this formalistic pilpul, who am I to stop you?! I can offer you more gems in this spirit that empty every discussion on earth of all content. For example, nowhere is there any value to human life, since there are always circumstances in which we permit ourselves to take it. The argument is only about when. Or: water has no importance, because there are places where we consume it, and the only argument is when that is called waste and when it is not. Or: military conscription has no value, because there are places where we waive it (not necessarily for Haredim). And so on and so forth. So, best of luck to us.
I don’t think this is formalistic pilpul. When the law imposes severe penalties for incitement, and on the other hand we have freedom of speech, then the line separating the two is razor-thin and completely subjective. Take an example: under freedom of speech, a person claims that the prime minister should be murdered, and on the other hand, clearly this is incitement. Your interpretation of such a threat — namely (let us assume) that this is an imminent danger of harm — will not be accepted by the Attorney General and many other people, and they will allow the person to continue expressing himself. I’m surprised by the way you brushed off my puzzlement — a way I would have expected to find on other, less thoughtful sites (not trying to flatter you).
When you say you oppose any restriction on freedom of speech, except where there is an imminent danger of harm, you’ve emptied the principle of all content. In North Korea too they support freedom of speech, except where etc. Their interpretation of imminent danger of harm is a bit broader than yours and serves different purposes, and therefore the declaration in favor of freedom of speech has no meaning anywhere, in any place.
If we’re being honest, all of us are against freedom of speech, unless it serves our purposes. Even in those moments when we strike the pose of “I oppose every word of your views, but I would give my life so that you can say them,” that too stems from some egoistic perspective — namely, the fear that in the end my own words too will not be heard. That, and nothing more.
I admit that I’m exaggerating a bit, just to make the point clearer, but the idea is completely understandable.