The article can be found here; here is the Introduction:
There is a growing sense of pessimism regarding the future of free speech in the United States. Individuals from various political factions are increasingly trying to stifle controversial discussions. The concern is that Americans are losing their willingness to engage in open and constructive dialogue. Participating in public discourse has become too risky. There is a fear that speech deemed incorrect will be silenced by the left or attacked by the right.
This situation is indeed troubling. However, solving it requires a correct understanding of its root causes. Many tend to view the problem as one of free speech. The belief is that the crisis could be resolved if people were able to speak more freely. However, this perspective misidentifies the issue. The current challenge we face is not about free speech but rather about politics. Our ability to communicate effectively has been disrupted due to the diseased state of our politics. The misconception arises from the American culture’s fixation on what is commonly referred to as the free speech principle. This principle is often misunderstood, leading to significant and far-reaching consequences.
I will use a 2022 opinion piece by the editorial board of The New York Times titled “America Has a Free Speech Problem” as a focal point. In its opening statement, the editorial cautioned that Americans are “losing their grip” on the “fundamental right” to express their opinions publicly without fear of backlash. Rather than focusing on government regulation of speech, which falls under the constitutional law of the First Amendment, the editorial addressed the more fundamental question of free speech itself. It advocated for granting individuals the right to speak their minds openly. The editorial implied that by allowing more voices to be heard, our political landscape could heal. It suggested that increased speech could alleviate the current discord in our politics.
While the editorial’s perspective is not unique, it is based on a flawed interpretation of free speech.
Freedom of speech does not inherently mean that unrestrained expression is desirable. It does not imply that more speech is always better. This becomes evident when we consider extreme cases. Individuals who cannot control their speech, who constantly talk without restraint, do not embody the value of free speech; they exhibit narcissism instead. Unbridled expression may be suitable in certain therapeutic settings but is rarely appropriate elsewhere.
In normal circumstances, individuals typically exercise restraint in their speech. While I may dislike my friend’s spouse, I will refrain from expressing that sentiment in a manner that could hurt my friend. Speech forms the basis of human relationships, but no relationship can thrive without tact and discretion. Unrestrained communication that disregards basic norms of respect can jeopardize friendships. Therefore, more speech is not always beneficial.
Friendship also necessitates honesty and spontaneity. There are occasions when friends must convey difficult truths to each other. The key lies in striking a balance between speaking freely and exercising tact. The goal is to enhance the quality of the friendship through speech. We speak when it enhances the friendship, and we hold back when it benefits the relationship. The ultimate aim is to strengthen the bond of friendship, not merely to increase speech.
The same principle applies to various human interactions. Speech should not be valued solely from the speaker’s perspective. Instead, speech that enriches relationships is prized, while speech that undermines relationships is discouraged. For instance, a lawyer addressing a court or a client does not simply speak freely; the goal is to achieve the best outcome for the client. This requires a delicate balance between candid expression and tactful restraint.
As a law professor myself, I do not measure the success of my classes by the volume of words spoken. I do not simply blurt out my thoughts but strive to communicate in a way that maximizes educational value. This entails maintaining a balance between self-restraint and spontaneous expression. No abstract principle of free speech can override this fundamental and universal logic.
Therefore, the premise of the New York Times editorial, while commonly reiterated, is fundamentally flawed. The concept of free speech often rests on unstated assumptions about the desirability of unfettered expression. In reality, human speech always occurs within the context of specific relationships. Thus, we do not value speech for its own sake but for its contribution to the quality of relationships. We do not applaud friends’ speech but cherish the friendship itself. The effectiveness of lawyers’ arguments is judged by their impact on the rule of law. Classroom discussions are valued based on their role in facilitating education. All such assessments are context-specific and substantive.
