As I prepared this post, I had no idea MZ was preparing one on a similar topic! But the point I want to make is somewhat different. It is that deliberations on the value of free speech must take place through the prism of the common good. That might sound obvious, but it is anything but. In fact, we too often frame the issue as one of individual autonomy, especially the individual autonomy exalted by American constitutional liberalism. We might set boundaries, but never question the underlying assumption that free speech is a good in itself, rather than as a means to affect the common good.
I want to give three examples of how the common good might call for a less restrictive “right” to free speech.
The first is completely obvious – pornography. An individualist would claim the right to produce and consume pornography as an essential element of human freedom. Those opposed would be simply advised not to partake in pornography. Sure, this approach has room for some modest restrictions, such keeping it away from children etc. But ultimately, it is seen as a free speech right, and this is related to the laissez-faire right to the rewards of market outcomes (porn is big business). I would argue that given the social detriment caused by pervasive pornography, by its effect on sexual behavior and on the stability of marriage, there is a good case to ban it outright on common good grounds. This restricts speech, and it controls the market – both are anathema to individualists. But the common good sometimes involves a rather “big” role for government.
The second is a little less obvious – hate speech. In some countries and contexts, allowing hate speech might hurt the common weal by instilling an atmosphere of violence and endangering public order. Given its particular history, I can support the German prohibition against pro-nazi rhetoric. But in other countries, such as the United States, the case might be not so strong, and might even backfire. Either way, what matters is the common good, not the individual right.
The third issue is topical – donating money to political campaigns to influence policy. In the United States, this is touted as a free speech issue, as discussed by the Supreme Court in its awful Citizens United decision. But a political system greased by private financial interests is poisonous. It means the rich get access and rewards, the poor get left behind. The domination of the political and economic system by monied interests (which usually tends to be big business) has been consistently and vehemently condemned by Catholic social teaching from the time of Leo XIII, and the common good is always the framework of analysis. The United States has a particular problem, with the scale of campaign finance, and the closeness of lobbyists and policymakers. A common good case could be made for banning all private campaign finance, with no loopholes, and moving to public funding.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In