Justice Brandeis’s concurring opinion in Whitney v. California encapsulates the four traditional rationales for protecting freedom of speech:
“Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.” Whitney, 274 U.S. 357, 375 (1927).
Justice Brandeis’s quote above captures what have been thought to be the four traditional constitutional values that are advanced by protecting freedom of speech: promoting democratic self-governance by ensuring the greatest amount of information and the broadest range of views are permitted in the public domain; promoting the search for truth through the operation of the “marketplace of ideas” rather than government regulation; advancing individual autonomy by protecting our ability to express ideas—whether political, artistic, ideological, etc.—without fear of punishment; providing a “safety valve” for individuals to express their dissatisfaction or anger by speech rather than turning to other means because their speech is suppressed.
A fifth rationale that I [Lyles] want you to consider is promoting societal tolerance—i.e., freedom of speech requires people to learn to tolerate ideas that they may not like, which builds habits of mind that in turn lead to greater tolerance of people whom they may not like.
All of these rationales are subject to elaboration, examination, and criticism, and we will discuss them throughout the second half of PolS 354.
I wholeheartedly agree with the addition of the fifth rationale (promoting societal tolerance). The United States is by all accounts a pluralistic society. With so much diversity, our coexistence demands that we tolerate and accept one another – something which is achieved in no small part by freedom of speech. As the chapter points out, the expression of a diverse range of ideas instills a habit of tolerating ideas we may otherwise not agree with. Given the high polarization in our country today, this is needed now more than ever.
Citizens of the United States are to engage in self-government by using reason and practical judgment. Accordingly, one rationale of freedom of speech is that it is indispensable for self-government. People communicate on political matters so that they can intelligently participate in the democratic process.
Societal tolerance is an important concept to discuss with free speech, but it may be hard to achieve in countries other than the United States. America was built on the idea of freedom and acceptance for all based on religion and culture and gender, but in many democratic countries even though these values may be written to be accepted, there is still intolerance for many people in accepting these differences. In the country from where my family is from, in Poland, for example, there are democratic values promoted but there is still major intolerance to same-sex marriages and many anti-abortionists who prevent individuals through usage of governmental institutions from even expressing their want for these rights.
Political cartoon involving the Schenck case
The concept of “providing a safety valve” is particularly interesting to me. I wonder if there’s any specific research behind whether access to free speech actually prevents political violence to any significant degree, or if this is just a speculative idea.
I feel as though social tolerance can go both ways. Yes, it can bring about new ideas and projections that can be beneficial to our society. However, it also comes with crazed speech that can be deemed offensive and detrimental. With social tolerance, one would be okay with hearing both of these sides. Hearing the good can promote changes and hearing the bad can teach us how to prevent that type of slander. I don’t think it’s impossible, but I feel as though it’s unrealistic.
Introducing people to different views, even views that we may not agree with is important because that’s how we learn and “open our eyes” which helps us see what others think and why they think it.
In the passage, Justice Brandeis advances two major justifications for freedom of speech and thought. First, he asserts that individual liberty is an end in itself because it “makes [us] free to develop their faculties.” These faculties include “reason” as well as “thought, hope, and imagination.” Second, Brandeis argues that freedom of speech is essential in a democratic society where the people govern themselves. Citizens have a right and duty to take part in public discussion, and this freedom is “indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.” In this way, Brandeis understands the First Amendment in terms of the positive values—liberty and democratic self-government—that it promotes.
I agree that it is important to be able to express views different from the majority. Exposing people to opposing views is how we expand our thoughts, which makes freedom of speech so important. If we prohibited every thing that the majority at the time opposed we would have far less social equality. Even if people don’t covert the way they think they will at least develop societal tolerance.
This rationale of promoting the societal tolerance caught my attention, if there’s this rationale then, everyone can speak whatever he wants regardless of his audience because he knows that the society will tolerate his speech if they don’t like it. However, I wonder if this can rationale can’t cause the conflict among the society.
This idea of accepting all speech today no matter its offensive material I believe has become a more sensitive topic than ever. Without understanding to this day why the general public has become more sensitive than in the past, speaking on opposing views may cause great harm, unfortunately. Similar to the “reasonable-man theory”, this high sensitivity would make free speech and its restrictions very difficult.
Promotion of social tolerance and the marketplace of ideas, while seeming like great ideas, are not as easily depicted in real life. The ugly truth behind free speech is that some of it can be extremely unhinged. Bullying, racial slurs, speech containing bigotry- these are all harmful and while they “promote social tolerance” and add to the “marketplace of ideas” they can hurt people much faster than they can benefit society.
I feel that societal tolerance is a thing that needs to happen. I agree that with free speech comes new ideas that people must learn about.
Social tolerance is debatable, I do not think I should have to tolerate someone whose opinions completely disregard the lives or existence of others. We should not have to tolerate ideas or beliefs regarding white supremacy, racism, etc. Because those ideologies that have been “tolerated” have resulted in hundreds of years of oppression, genocide, violence, and death. Those ideologies should have no place in society.
promoting societal tolerance is very important, and extremely subjective. We live in a white supremacist, patriarchal society and all of our institutions uphold these ideologies. So, how do you promote a just societal tolerance, when the current tolerance is already so defined by the centuries of racism and sexism? It’s an uphill battle for sure
this idea of tolerance when it comes to language is kind in its initial function, but what happens when someone else’s language does not tolerate me? some forms of speech are silencing and completely untolerant of others, like bigotry, sexism, homophobia, and racism. Why should we have to tolerate what does not tolerate us?
We need to tolerate each other, but what about when the other cross the limits? Liberty of expression is precious, but people do not regulate their word. It causes problems, then tolerance is lost.
The fifth rationale is something that is quite interesting to think about. I think social tolerance is very important to be able to listen to both sides of the conversation. It is quite odd that we often paint those with different opinions than us as inherently evil but it is also understandable. I have an uncle who is very conservative, intolerant, Trump-voting and all, but he is really kind when politics are not involved. Therefore, it almost becomes this conflict where, politically, his views break my heart, but as a person, he is just my uncle. There is such a tug of war with how one should feel about a person, their political values, and the individual as a whole because oftentimes, one does not parallel the other.
I agree that societal tolerance would be great because everyone would feel the need to understand the perspective of others but at the same time I can’t stop thinking about the idea that there are people that have ideas that are just not okay for example, racism. There are ideas that just should not be accepted even though tolerance is something good it can become something bad in the long run
As am in considering the importance of free speech and the weight that it holds on our country I begin to realize that its admiration also brings fear. It seems that although this is a pillar for what we think “America” stands for there are immediate limits that come with its level of importance. Something that is in high demand and high value does not come naturally to all. What I am getting at is, there is a sprinkle of irony surrounded our natural born rights and their limitations.
Promoting societal tolerance, that’s a tricky thing to add in such polarizing times. I think that this principle could become problematic when it comes to hate speech, especially since we’ve seen such a rise in neoconservative hate speech, are we meant to promote societal tolerance of that? It’s a tricky and double-edged sword and while I see the positives of the argument, I can surely see how it could become twisted to a negative.
Sean NicholasOct 30, 2020
This posting specifically mentions the four traditional constitutional values that are advanced by protecting freedom of speech. I feel like these are things that are still used and argued within today’s society, especially given the state of our current administration which has caused many if not more people to become politically active, sharing their opinions, and participating in political outings.
Brittany TamayoOct 30, 2020
There are four traditional values that support the rationale for having free speech, and a fifth that Lyles has brought up. I think that idea is interesting, it is definitely a benefit for all of society. Meanwhile, the other four traditional values I think are more catered towards individuals. I do think that it is important to promote societal tolerance.
Brianna GuedesOct 30, 2020
The four traditional constitutional values can also be seen as protecting what the majority does to the minority in terms of spreading misconception, lies, etc
Rama IzarOct 29, 2020
I think that the fifth value that Lyles mentions (promoting societal tolerance) is interesting. In some cases, yes, I can see how freedom of speech can promote societal tolerance. However, I think this country is extremely divided and that there is little societal tolerance. I think some of us can say that we are open-minded and can tolerate ideas we don’t like (like putting pineapple on pizza or something with minimal harm), however, with topics like “Do Black lives matter?,” I personally do not find that I can tolerate any answer besides “yes, of course they do.” Basically, what I am trying to say is that yes, in an ideal world where the biggest problems are about whether or not you should put pineapples on your pizza, freedom of speech should indeed promote societal tolerance. But, this is not the world we live in. The world we live in deals with racism, police brutality, accessible healthcare, climate change, etc. etc. etc. To many, these topics are non-negotiable and therefore, freedom of speech does not necessarily promote tolerating other views. My examples weren’t the best, but I hope this made sense.
oh this is a great comment, thank you for sharing.
Emma WhaleyOct 22, 2020
The concurring opinion of Whitney v California, in a sense, outlines and summarizes the four rationales for freedom of speech. The first, promoting democratic self-governance, ensures that information and a wide range of views to be permitted, which I could tell from the part where he states, “public discussion is a political duty.” The second rationale, to promote the search for the truth through operation of the marketplace of ideas, instead of government regulation, I think is very important because government regulation on ideas would lead to no difference and no diversity, which is an important aspect of this country, in my opinion. Even in the concurring opinion, he states how hazardous it would be to discourage thought, hope, and imagination. The third rationale, to advance the individual autonomy, by protecting our ability to express ideas without punishment is equally as important, especially as it relates to democracy and our government because individual ideas, opinions, and thoughts are important in a representative democracy. The last traditional rationale, providing a safety valve for individuals to express their dissatisfaction by speech rather than turning to other means because their speech is suppressed, is found in the context of the opinion where he discusses how the path to safety of a stable government lies in the opportunity for free discussion of these problems and grievances and offers a free “marketplace” to propose remedies and offer individual opinions on how to fix the issues. I think, in regard to Lyle’s fifth rationale, that it is equally as good of a reason, if not more, for the freedom of speech. America is a “melting pot”, meaning there are people of all ethnicities, races, religions, etc, so by having the freedom of speech, we begin to become more tolerant and even more welcoming of these people from different backgrounds than ourselves, allowing for a better social cohesion.
Jyah VoraOct 18, 2020
In the case Whitney v. California, Justice Brandeis gives her four rationales for free speech. They include: promoting democratic self governance, promoting the search for truth through the operation of the “marketplace of ideas,” advancing individual autonomy, and finally to provide a “safety valve.” Professor Lyles added a fifth rationale: promoting societal tolerance. I agree with Lyles’s rationale because I feel like most people won’t listen to what they don’t believe in or only align with people who are similar to themselves. I think it is important to diversify!
Marissa ScavelliOct 24, 2019
I like that Lyles included the fifth rationale to consider here (promoting social tolerance) because it’s super important in our society for people to tolerate ideas that they may not like. We live in a country where people come from all different backgrounds, cultures, etc. and of course not everyone will see eye to eye. But we are all entitled to our own opinions and ideas so we cannot attack someone else for their own beliefs, unless they entail a clear a present danger…. But overall I think promoting social tolerance is being open minded to others views even if you do not necessarily agree. If everyone was more open minded maybe we would have a more peaceful society. To add to that, I feel like a lot of our government officials do not practice societal tolerance.
I totally agree. I think it’s really important for people to try and have a little societal tolerance instead of getting their feelings hurt just because they don’t agree with something.
I am not sure if I agree with what I stated. I am conflicted. Hopefully we can discuss this in class. Perhaps after “freshly painted white walls”
Oct 26, 2019•Delete