The tricky matter of “free speech”

Making some connections between thought, language and action.

Laurance’s topic in this episode is language, and his broad aim is to reveal some connections between the logical and ethical dimensions of language, and the socio-political issues of free speech and hate speech. Along the way, he will explore the familiar, yet puzzling, question of how thought, speech and action are related.

Laurance asks, “What is the point of language?” and notes the common response that language is intended to communicate our own subjective thoughts, ideas and opinions. However, this response is problematic, in part because it assumes a “Cartesian” or dualist view of mind and body, and prioritises thinking and feeling over their expression. Dualism runs into some well-known difficulties, including puzzles about causality. We readily find examples of physical or material phenomena both causing, and being caused by, such mental or psychological phenomena as our beliefs, desires, intentions and emotional states. But how can such causal relationships exist between mind and body if, as dualism claims, these two domains are completely separate from each other?

Laurance then moves to consider some of the familiar assumptions we make when we speak and listen to one another. We assume that we can understand each other, but beyond linguistics and grammar, we assume the mutual acceptance of a basic logical structure designed to expose assumptions and implications which are contradictory or inconsistent. This structure is also intended to guarantee what we call “truth preservation”, that is, an assurance that, provided we begin with true statements or beliefs, sound logic and reasoning will never lead to false conclusions.

This is important because both meaning and truth, or truthfulness, are linked to such ethical virtues as sincerity, accuracy and trust. In practice, this points to the importance of embedding even casual conversation in a framework in which it is appropriate to challenge what has been said, to question the assumptions and reasoning strategies being used, etc.
Moving to the topic of free speech, most notably in the context of demonstrations and rallies in which contentious, inflammatory or hateful speech, whether in the form of statements/assertions or exclamations/commands, is used, Laurance notes that such contexts leave no room for the kinds of follow-up questions and challenges just referred to.
Nevertheless, unless we believe that those engaging in such speech acts are simply mimicking or repeating what others have said, and many probably are, it is reasonable to hold them accountable, both for the truth of what is said and for its likely impact on others. In this sense, speech constitutes a form of action and, occasionally, action which can be judged as genuinely harmful.

Leaving open the question of whether such harm, where it can be clearly established, should be open to legal sanctions, Laurance cites the views of the philosopher J. S. Mill, who famously defended the right of free speech in just about every circumstance, because the consequences of banning it would nearly always be worse.

Wary of claiming to arrive at any strong conclusions on the topic of free speech, Laurance nevertheless suggests that proclaiming such speech as the foundation of a democratic society is somewhat “underwhelming”. Spoken and written slogans and exclamations made at rallies, demonstrations and on social media do not absolve those who make them from attending to the logical and ethical requirements which are essential hallmarks of a civil and respectful society.

Laurance ends the episode by citing some recent media statements which reinforce this point.

Connect with Dr. Laurance Splitter: LinkedIn
For resources, transcripts and more visit: https://www.therestisuncertain.com/episodes/