Freedom of Speech in Times of War

Tuesday, July 4, 2006
First Aired:
Tuesday, December 6, 2005

What Is It

The Constitution grants the freedom of speech to every citizen. Journalists value it more than anything else. Should the freedom of speech be unlimited? Would unlimited freedom of speech do more good or bad to our society? Would limited freedom of speech impact the monitoring power of news media and therefore threaten our society? John and Ken discuss the philosophy behind the freedom of speech with Geoff Stone from the University of Chicago Law School.

Listening Notes

Ken distinguishes between speech, thought and action. Speech expresses thought. One might think that as free as I am to think, I should also be free to think. However, speech is closely related to action since it can elicit certain actions. Shouting "there is fire" in a movie theater for instance is such an example. This overlap of speech in the sphere of action imposes limits on speech.

Ken introduces Geoffrey Stone, Professor of Law from the University of Chicago. Stone explains that constitution assumes that all citizens will be eager to learn about all opinions on matters of public policy - this is an outcome of the democratic principle of self-governance. However, public debate is often a cacophony of noise. Ken asks, wouldn't it be understandable to regulate the speech market to prevent the spread of useless, pernicious ideas? Noting there is some regulation, Stone answers that the idea that governments can decide what is a permissible opinion is a really dangerous idea, as it usually leads governments to suppress any idea that doesn't serve their interests. Such laws could potentially prohibit ideas like woman's suffrage or the emancipation of slaves.

诽谤对理性的讨论没有任何有价值的贡献,所以有时它可以被扼杀。在战争时期,异议应该被扼杀吗?斯通举例说明了不同的美国政府在战争时期是如何对待言论自由的。

在正常时期,我们可能想要保护言论自由,但在危险时期呢?战争时期的异议可能会使我们的军队士气低落。斯通认为,如果没有在基本政策问题上产生分歧的权利,就不可能有一个自治的社会,而战争是一个至关重要的政策问题。在战争时期限制言论自由是暂时的。然而,冷战似乎会永远持续下去——根据斯通的说法,“没有人看到隧道尽头的曙光”——因此,冷战期间对言论自由的限制实际上可能会导致永久性的限制。

Stone concludes that what is lacking in our society is not so much the control of free speech but "a national educational effort in understanding why we have the liberties we do." Stone explains that instead of searching for ways to limit speech, we should try to understand why disagreement is valuable.

  • (4:30-8:02)Roving Philosopher Reporter Polly Strykerinterviews two veterans with opposing ideas of freedom of speech.
  • (46:30- 52:00)Conundrum: A listener says that a sister never visits her in the Bay area because of the region's liberal reputation. Ken and John offer philosophical guidance.

Transcript