The argument of this short piece is that freedom of speech is a normatively governed institution which like roads and bridges needs to be maintained by government. The argument draws on writings of the conservative columnist George Will.
Freedom of speech and
the Consent of the Governed
H.G. Callaway
“Free speech,” wrote conservative political columnist George Will (an ex-Republican and “never-Trumper”) “is not free in the sense that it is free of prerequisites, it is not free of a complicated institutional frame”;
Free speech, as much as a highway system, is something government must establish and maintain. The government of a country without the rare and fragile traditions of civility, without education and communications capabilities, could proclaim freedom of speech and resolutely stand back. But the result would not be free speech. It would be mayhem, and the triumph of incivility.1
The chief idea here is that “free speech” is properly understood as a normative, political institution and a social-political aim established by constitutional government—and not a natural result of human activities lacking a needed “institutional frame.” On the contrary, lacking an appropriate institutional frame, according to Will’s view, the result is “mayhem” and “the triumph of incivility.” What, then, is the appropriate “institutional frame” of free speech? How are we to avoid a breakdown or degeneration of free speech into incivility and social-political mayhem? Free speech, among much else, is intended to register the presence and/or lack of public support for government: “the consent of the governed.” The people may, for instance, in the words of the First Amendment, “peaceably assemble” and “petition the government for
redress of grievances.” But free speech does not include the encouragement of or sympathy for violence and street mobs. “Mostly peaceful” demonstrations cannot excuse associated violence and disorder arising from demonstrations; and the leftward slogan, “No Justice, No Peace,” must be resolutely rejected. The establishment of justice comes through the law and in the courts of law. As Fukuyama has put a related point, the state “is an instrument for controlling violence, and one of the ways you do that is by shifting the locus of conflict from the streets into a parliament where you can argue and deliberate rather than fighting things out.”2 I
It is not that American history contains no periods and episodes illustrating related dangers, possible solutions and resolutions. The dangers have recurred—starting with the factionalism of the 1790’s and erupting again in the most severe form in the pre-Civil War period of the 1850’s. Though contemporary polarization has frequently been compared to that of the 1850’s,3 the Present situation present more plausibly invites comparison to the factionalism of the late Gilded Age and , the Progressive Era,4 or the divisions between right and left during the Great Depression of the 1930’s. Contemporary commonalities with the period from the Gilded Age through the Progressive Era and with the 1930’s include not only intensive political divisiveness and discord, but also very significant levels of social-economic distress—conditioned by prior periods of
large-scale economic expansion and dislocations: the Gilded Age of mass industrialization and the “roaring 1920’s” respectively.
As a country, the U.S. is held together in significant degree by its promise of economic opportunity for ordinary people. This promise has drawn immigrants from around the world over centuries; and the state of the economy has long been a chief indicator of up-coming election results. Situations perceived as a threat to broad economic opportunity evoke public discontent and in the extreme tend to set one demographic group against another. We depend on a free press to keep the public informed, to avoid rationalization of evils or sensationalizing reports. By that standard, large segments of the partisan media are not serving the public interest. There is a lack of needed balance between the commercial interests of the media and their duties to the public.
Looking for the institutional frame of free speech, we naturally first think of the Supreme Court and its decisions under the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech, or of the press.” It might seem initially that this amounts to a purely lassez-faire, renunciation of lawful control or regulation of speech. But it is not.
First of all, the courts have had to decide what counts as constitutionally protected speech. A good deal of this is familiar in terms of what is prohibited by law. You can’t legally stand up before an angry crowd, for instance, and urge the crowd to violence. Inciting riot is illegal. Speech is not protected where it evokes a “clear and present danger” of unlawful action. In consequence, you cannot legally incite a mob to violence or falsely shout “Fire!” in a crowed theater risking the immediate dangers of a crowd in panic. In certain contexts, speech is regulated in the public interest, chiefly where speech itself becomes a dangerous form of action. But that is not the end of the matter.
Though publicly financed colleges and universities are obligated by the First Amendment to protect freedom of speech on campus, these institutions may and do prohibit disruptive speech in the classroom as a condition of student attendance and educational participation. It is doubtful that higher education would be possible without provisions for the instructor’s control of classroom participation. Institutional prohibition of explicitly racist agitation also makes good sense in this context, since there is little or no reason to think that such speech in the classroom would contribute to improvement of the students or improvement of the (factually multiracial) polity. This makes at least as much sense as the instructor refraining from racial agitation. But
examining arguments for and against racism is something else again. Provocation in teaching has its just limits. Still provocation in private exchanges is limited only by the criterion of its presenting a “clear and present danger.”
There is no sense of constitutionally protected freedom of speech which removes the possibility of someone being offended by what is said in classroom discussion. In consequence, the expanding notion of speech as “micro-aggression,” amounts to a rejection of free speech. Since free speech and the freedom of the press are suited to aid the public in defending itself against the abuse of political power, the power to offend cannot be removed without gutting the democratic ideal of government by the consent of the governed. Constitutionally protected freedom of speech is not designed to make everyone feel comfortable, it is instead designed to keep a country and its inhabitants free.
What are the just limits of free speech on campus? Beyond saying in formal terms that one political or controversial opinion cannot be forbidden if its denial or opposite is allowed, it seems clear that there is a place in these decisions for appeal to existing moral and cultural authority, conceived as guiding good judgment. But this is quite distinct from simply catering or encouraging student hypersensitivities or treating students as “customers” to be pleased and who, like commercial customers are to be viewed as “always right.” Good judgment in the classroom, is definitely much called for, not administrative censorship!
The First Amendment closely links freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and freedom of the press is now broadly understood to include freedom of expression in radio, television and the newer electronic media. Regulation of the public media is a long established fact of federal law and court decisions. The laws regulating public media may easily be viewed as contributing to the “institutional frame” (or lack thereof) of press freedom; and they are consistent with the principle of the consent of the governed, insofar as they have been enacted by duly elected representatives of the people in accordance with the constitution. But it may be doubted that the current U.S. regulatory law has kept pace with rapid technological developments and their commercial exploitation. The “consent of the governed” as a principle of liberal, constitutional
democracy surely does not require the commercial imperative of mass participation (and mass commercial surveillance) via advertisement supported “free” internet subscriptions.5
NOTES:
1. George Will 1983, Statecraft as Soulcraft, What Government Does (New York: Simon and Schuster), pp. 123-124. Will’s book derives from the Godkin Lectures delivered at Harvard University in October 1981.
2. Quoted in Mathilde Fasting, ed. 2021, After the End of History, Conversations with Francis Fukuyama (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press), p. 82.
3. For an empirically based analysis of the factors tending to evoke civil wars around the world, see, Barbara F. Walters 2022, How Civil Wars Start (New York: Viking).
present situation more plausibly invites comparison to the factionalism of the late Gilded Age and the Progressive Era,4 or the divisions between right and left during the Great Depression of the 1930’s. Contemporary commonalities with the period from the Gilded Age through the Progressive Era and with the 1930’s include not only intensive political divisiveness and discord, but also very significant levels of social-economic distress—conditioned by prior periods of large-scale economic expansion and dislocations: the Gilded Age of mass industrialization and the “roaring 1920’s” respectively.
4. Cf. the Preface of Michael McGerr 2003, A Fierce Discontent (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press) on the domestic failure of President Wilson’s “Progressivism,” p. xvi: “World War I. marked the high point of the progressive movement. ... Winning the war abroad, the Wilsonians lost their war at home. The administration’s war policies produced disorder instead of order, chaos instead of control. Amid race riots, strikes, high inflation, [and pandemic!] and a frenzied Red scare, Americans turned
against the progressive blueprint for the nation.”
5. According to Walters 2022, Civil Wars, “the most important driver” or “accelerant” of recent civil wars has been social media, as employed by radical “ethnic entrepreneurs” who foment resentment; and the factions most disposed to political violence are people with long histories in the country who are chiefly rural, and who resent displacement by immigrants and urban elites.
I beg to differ with George Will. The bulwark of tyranny is the abuse of law to curtail the natural and inalienable right to freely think and speak……“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington
Americans lead the charge.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Readers,
The following statement of the "Princeton Principles" are of interest for this thread of discussion.
See:
https://jmp.princeton.edu/princeton-principles-campus-culture-free-inquiry
Comments invited.
H.G. Callaway
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Muntslag,
Where exactly is it that you disagree with George Will?
It might be helpful if you said a bit more.
H.G. Callaway
First of all, an expression of gratitude to Prof. Callaway for finding a way, at the formal level, of raising the level of debate here on RG. This is a substantive paper (mini-paper, opinion piece), the issues are serious, and this way of presentation is an invitation to get over and beyond the all too common 'here's my personal opinion' format. (And also, it must be said, of extending to RG members the courtesy of treating them as serious interlocutors. Not all of them always behave as such.)
1. Even someone who only follows US politics cursorily will know that the unprecedented spectacle of a former President indicted before a grand jury - a truly historical event - is going to revolve, in substance, around First Amendments Rights. And that, whatever the verdicts turn out to be, these are going to be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. So anyone who has any political nous will be aware that the history of First Amendment rights in the US (but not just in the US) is going to become a focus of attention like at no time since the civil war. So it seems to me that the opening sentence contains an untenable 'naturalisation' of something that is deeply and inherently historical. Freedom of speech can't be discussed without the kinds of issues that Jonathan Israel has published on so extensively: the history of democracy, going back to the Dutch war of independence against Spain. The Reformation, freedom of religion, the stand-off between Catholicism and Protestantism, the relation of both to economics and governance. The Federalist Papers were profoundly influenced by the republicanism of The Netherlands. (And this has nothing to do with "roads and bridges". This is a bit of populism that has crept in that has no basis in substance for this debate.)
2. As a European (sitting in Amsterdam), i.e. as someone who has no vote in the US ('no skin in the game' would be I suppose the 'pop' way of putting it), merely an 'observer', perhaps it's a bit easier to adopt an air of detachment. My thesis would be (and this is based on my own tradition of scholarship, it's not just 'flip comment'), that the crisis around freedom of speech in the US has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis. (The book I'm reading currently - Henry Kissinger's World Order - would seem to underscore this on every page.)
3. So, my question to Prof. Callaway would be: how would you go about assessing the statement that freedom of speech issues in the US have reached the level of a constitutional crisis? Can you conceive of a non-partisan way of discussing this, and how would you characterise what such a 'non-partisan' approach consisted in?
Dear Prof. Callaway,
I take issue with the notion that “Free speech is not free of a complicated institutional frame”.... thinking and speaking your mind is a natural inalienable right guaranteed under the Constitution of the Republic. American democracy created a complicated institutional frame that is depriving some people of the right to freely think and speak their mind and enabling others to advocate hate, genocide and engage in violence with impunity. Especially the minority groups. It is no different from what the totalitarian Bolshevik communist did in Germany and Russia. America in just a few generations morphed into exactly what it was fighting against ‘minority group tyranny’. I’ve been there and speak from experience.
If RG (a mostly US venture-capital company?) is going to remain relevant for science and scholarships, it is going to have to find ways of curbing what now in the US is being presented to us as free speech. (Since this is a forum increasingly popular globally, it is worth pointing out at the same time that science and scholarship are just as threatened in the BRICS countries - those nowadays hoisting 'postcoloniality' flags with so much enthusiasm.) Oh, and someone in The Netherlands comparing the US with Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia is insane. But then again, it corresponds to the level of demagogy and ignorance that is now defended in the US under free speech - by a former US President, it must be said - so in this weird way it is a case in point.
Perhaps Prof. Callaway is not aware that the principles he himself abides by in his entirely apposite position paper - reasoned debate, backed up by reputable references, requiring of the reader a modicum of reflection and the ability to 'self-objectify' - all fly out the window once the conception of free speech that he is defending therein actually gets applied to what he himself stands for. (It is the kind of 'contradiction' that was analysed in great detail, at the level of logic, psychology and sociology, during the eighties, under the title 'theory of communicative action'.)
Philadelphia, PA
Dear van Gelder & readers,
You asked:
So, my question to Prof. Callaway would be: how would you go about assessing the statement that freedom of speech issues in the US have reached the level of a constitutional crisis? Can you conceive of a *non-partisan* way of discussing this, and how would you characterise what such a 'non-partisan' approach consisted in?
---end of quotation---
Frankly, I don't see a "constitutional crisis." I would emphasize that not just anything one might mention counts, legally, as protected speech: classically in U.S. law, one is not "free" to "shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." One is not free to stand before an angry crowd and advocate violence. That amounts to incitement to riot. Sellers are not "free" to make use of deceptive advertising. In general, speech is not protected when it amounts to dangerous, disruptive or fraudulent action. Visitors to legislative chambers are not "free" to disrupt the proceedings by means of intrusive speech or shouts.
Also, of course, politicians are not "free" to conspire to subvert constitutional processes of the republic. Students are not "free" to disrupt classroom instruction and discussion. Parties to a legal process are not "free" to publicly dispute the issues and evidence which are subject to court decisions and the decision of a jury on guilt or innocence. Judges are within the law to impose "gag-orders" in order to protect the due process of the courts.
I am fairly confident that the courts will continue to uphold the distinction between constitutionally protected speech and illegal speech which amounts to dangerous, illegal or disruptive action. This is one of the advantages of the fact that the U.S. constitution is so difficult to change.
H.G. Callaway
Philadelphia, PA
Dear readers,
Perhaps the following brief quotation from Francis Fukuyama will help the discussion along:
Freedom of speech is one of the core freedoms of a liberal society. The ability to criticize powerful people and organizations serves as a check on their power, and the act of speech itself is an integral part of one’s personal autonomy.
Nonetheless, all liberal societies have placed limits on speech, limits that are inevitable given the dangerous potential of certain forms of speech. The rise of the internet has created a special problem for freedom of expression and has led to substantial confusion on the part of many people. An example of that is Elon Musk, who took over Twitter claiming that he was a “free speech absolutist.” That remark showed that he had not even begun to think through the complexities of managing speech in the internet/big platform era, and we are all paying the price for that now.
---end quotation---
It used to be said of people, discounting their sincerity or truthfulness, that they were "talking through their hat." This implied that what was said was intended for some third party (off to the side, as it were) instead of the person apparently addressed. This sort of thing has become very prominent on the internet. It belongs to the process in which people agree to or go along with outrageous claims and ideas in order to prove their loyalty to some group making outrageous demands on loyalty. This is commonly called something like "opinion in a silo" --where everyone has the same opinions and practices of mutual support are prominent. Taking seriously other views, not current in the loyalty group, then counts as disloyalty and is "grounds" for exclusion.
It used to be that people with very strange or outrageous opinions would find it very difficult to find anyone quite likeminded. But the internet has made that easy. Mr. Trump has obviously tapped into the phenomenon. My view is that it is time for Mr. Trump to retire from politics --for the good of the country. Equally, the world would benefit by a peaceful retirement of Mr. Putin --perhaps of the sort once arranged for Khrushchev?
We do not yet know the full social consequences of the internet (or of A.I. of course). In the interest of science and scholarship, I recommend avoiding larger-scale internet forums such as Twitter and FB, etc. It is also helpful to avoid continuous engagement on more scholarly forums such as R.G. Step back for a time and give yourself more time to think and reflect.
The U.S. constitutional commitment to freedom of speech is quite firm. That is one side of a political and institutional problem giving rise to divisiveness and discord. People need to stop treating political issues and candidates in the manner of commercial advertising campaigns; and it would be very helpful if the internet forums would stop encouraging confrontations of opposing views and confrontations of those who represent them.
"Hot" polemics often have very little value in the advancement of research and scholarship.
H.G. Callaway
Philadelphia, PA
Dear all,
Readers of the present thread may find the following report from the FIRE organization of interest:
See:
https://www.thefire.org/news/lawsuit-fire-sues-stop-california-forcing-professors-teach-dei
The announcement concerns FIRE's actions against a new California law requiring professors to teach a contested doctrine.
Please have a look. Comments invited.
H.G. Callaway
Prof H.G. Callaway , I'm as puzzled as you probably are, why RG's 20m researchers (from 20 countries), are so disinterested in your position paper "Freedom of speech and the Consent of the Governed." One would have thought that no researcher worth his (or her) salt would have failed to note immediately that this title makes no reference to academic freedom, to scientific method, and to the foundation of every exchange of views amongst scientists and scholars: namely a shared set of premisses on what constitutes, for researchers and scholars, a 'rational discussion.' (Or 'rational debate'.) One could surmise perhaps that, for the majority of the 20m RG members, 'research' has come to mean something both technical and highly specialised, and that few researchers nowadays are capable anymore of 'thinking theoretically' outside of more and more narrowly defined disciplinary boundaries. (That seems to be, even in philosophy departments, a skill falling in desuetude.) But perhaps it's a fault of this position paper itself. Your title opens up a can of worms which, once one starts pondering it, is affecting the whole world, and not just the US.
1. You have a former President, in the US, who, under the guise of free speech, has re-invented what the German propaganda ministry unfolded during the European interbellum: a poisonous form of propaganda and ideological intimidation making democracy (i.e. that 'consent of the governed' bit) impossible. Supported by one of your major political parties and a powerful media outlet that has a commercial (and ratings) interest in political polarisation. ("Hate sells.") You know as well as I do that many in your country are speaking of a constitutional crisis, in which DOJ, FBI and many other institutions are being 'delegitimised' - i.e. challenged and attacked as never before in the history of your country. In the name of free speech and First Amendment Rights.
Compared to that, this parallel insistence of yours, that this has something to do with what is roiling the universities, gets one to mull over just what your *own* premisses are. So my first question seeks to probe this strange linkage of issues concerning the history of constitutional law with issues concerning higher education. Sure, we're all following Jordan Peterson and 'prescribed speech', the strange campus politics in which students are increasingly treated as customers on a portal for trauma therapy. What are your reasons for conflating these two analytically distinct sets of issues? (History of constitutional law here, campus politics in the wake of 'massification' and commercialisation there?) The first goes back to the late middle ages, the latter to the student movement of the sixties. (c.f. this discussion of "The victimization mindset" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2chO8UzznM ) What are your reasons for conflating these very different sets of issues?
2. Since this is an international forum, your title "Freedom of Speech and consent of the governed" also acquires a quite different set of connotations that you do not touch on, but which will be very much in the forefront for many of your non-USA readers. It's an ideal - a shorthand for the US conception of freedom and democracy - standing at the centre of the entire post-WWII international system, which has inspired millions around the world (including yours truly), but which is now being seriously challenged on all the wellknown fronts. (Ukraine, climate, Taiwan.) It makes your position paper sound a bit preachy, a second weakness. Fukuyama - who got it spectacularly wrong with his 'end of history' - is just not the plausible authority here. Would you consider the global aspects of your title? Kissinger? Mearsheimer? What does freedom of speech mean at the level of US foreign policy?
Philadelphia, PA
Dear van Gelder,
Thanks for your further thoughts.
H.G. Callaway
Attacking my opinion as insane instead of refuting it, is exactly what this paper highlights.
For clarification I am going down memory lane…“When we get ready to take the United States, we will not take it under the label of communism; we will not take it under the label of socialism. These labels are unpleasant to the American people, and have been speared too much. We will take the United States under labels we have made very lovable; we will take it under liberalism, under progressivism, under democracy. But, take it, we will.” - Alexander Trachtenberg at the National Convention of Communist Parties, Madison Square Garden, New York City 1944.
During the 2000 presidential election George W. Bush became Hitler and a danger to minorities. I was there…..so my natural response was, if America had liberated Europe from Hitler and Nazi Germany, and had Hitler participate in presidential elections to become POTUS, there is an America that I and the rest of the world didn’t know.
Pim Fortuyn who challenged the multicultural apartheid that uses non-white people, including those from former Dutch colonies as cannon fodder to expand and maintain an underclass in the Netherlands was demonized, labeled racist, sexist, Nazi, Hitler and danger to minorities. These word weapons created a climate of hate which led to his assassination on May 6, 2002.
The character assassination and political persecution of a natural born American citizen who was called out of the mainstream right-wing extremist and danger to minorities because she defended the Constitution for the United States helped me to connect the dots.
“It is my thesis today that the sheer tenacity of the collectivist impulse — whether you call it socialism or communism or altruism — has changed not only the meaning of our words, but the meaning of the Constitution, and the character of our people.” - Janice-Rogers Brown,
Associate Justice, California Supreme Court.
Why was an African-American woman in America labeled a danger to minorities the same way Pim Fortuyn a White male was labeled a danger to minorities in the Netherlands?
Because they did not have the right to ‘freedom of speech’…. the government decides who has the right to free speech and who does not.
I was still in New York when Donald J. Trump decided to run for office…when he addressed the open-border immigration issue which is a massive under-ground economy that engages in exploitation of the undocumented, aka illegal aliens in America, he too became Hitler, fascist and danger to minorities.
AM I insane because I can see through the smoke screen of massive super-power media propaganda that the US morphed into a warmongering, natural resources plundering ‘minority group’ dictatorship?
Philadelphia, PA
Dear van Gelder,
Sorry to disappoint you.
Your themes and questions strike me as counter-productive. I looked into them and tried them out many years ago. They go nowhere --except perhaps toward excesses of Eurocentrism and anti-Americanism.
H.G. Callaway
Consent by the people instead of the divine right of a king or a creed is the history of constitutional law: Europe paved the way on all fronts.
The French revolution was fighting against the tyranny of the King and it resulted in the terrorism of Maximilien Robespierre. The American revolution was fighting against the tyranny of the British empire and it resulted in the Constitution for the United States and the declaration of independence: a Republic with a government for the people by the people: “Consent of the governed” refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is justified and lawful only when consented, or agreed to, by the people over which that political power is exercised.”
Napoleon Bonaparte gave Karl Marx fodder to put out his rinse and repeat theory and poisonous political ideology which advocated the destruction of western civilization, aka capitalism. Woodrow Wilson, a democrat, killed the consent of the governed. His spinmeister Edward Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud, born in Switzerland became the father of American propaganda. The Bolshevik communist revolution in Russia, the slaughter of Tsar Nicolas and his family and the genocide of Germans were justified by the anti-European anti-Western civilization tribalism of the communist manifesto, with the consent of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic who replaced the Kings.
Propaganda was not an invention of the Germany propaganda ministry. People learn by example. The German propaganda ministry got their cues from American propaganda spinmeister, Edward Bernays who called his work psychological warfare. Collectivist terrorism, poisonous propaganda and ideological intimidation became the state religion. Political extremists were turned into victims and the victims of their brutality were turned into villains.
Political radicalism, abuse of law and the overreach of government is sold to the public as protecting civil rights and minorities and Hans Hermann Hoppe gave an interesting talk on the systematic development of the phenomenon in America. https://youtu.be/8xZe8zR14bE?si=27TJ7Iazx8afukE-
So what does freedom of speech mean at the level of US foreign policy?
From the comfort of the State Department, Washington D.C and New York the “foreign policy” oligarchy in America dictates how people around the world should think, feel on any given subject, with massive media propaganda they are coerced to walk in lock-step and cheer the fascist imperialism of Henry Kissinger who shaped US policy: perpetual war, genocide, subjugation and destroying countries around the world with impunity in name of national security in the post-WWII ‘Rule of Law’, everybody has to adhere to the dictates of the ‘minority group’ regime, because’ after all the ‘minority group’ that suffered at the hands supposedly brutal Europeans know better what is good for the world.
Painting Trump as the bogeyman is disingenuous, because the genesis of the mess in America didn’t start with him. There are always two sides to a story, but it takes a lot of courage to call a spade a spade……the culture of hate in America is made possible by the government, laws, rules and regulations and those who control the printing presses. This depravity is exported to the rest of the world as the progress of liberal democracy.
The current political persecution and torture of Julian Assange is a perfect example what freedom of speech means at the level of US foreign policy. Supposedly civilized western countries that respect human rights are all on board….
One more rant from the direction of identity politics. The research or scholarship value of such 'contributions' is zero. They represent, at the level of politics, what at the level of psychology is called 'acting out.' Except that this is not a forum for political propaganda. Prof Callaway blames the Frankfurt School for this kind of polemics - my own background - but that is an error. This is entirely homegrown, i.e. the result of changes within the US higher education system since the sixties and seventies.
What identity politics has in common with Marxist-Leninism is not so much contempt for truth and scholarship, (which it does), is that both are collectivist creeds that as it were negate themselves: there's no such thing as truth and scholarship, is what they posit, and if you're not sufficiently enthusiastic about this novel idea, then you've 'outed' yourself as their sworn and mortal enemy. (In any of its current manifestations: you're a racist, misogynist, cisgender Eurocentric male, capitalist, all the rest. Everyone is familiar with this stuff.) Trying to argue against it is like trying to argue with a cult leader. What they're saying is meant to keep the followers in line and subservient, it's not addressed to you at all, and it's a mistake to engage. It's more a sort of secular fission product of the Protestant sects, in the sense that the unifying concept is not something to do with God or the Bible or a particular reading thereof - which at least demands of you that you've actually read it and are capable of arguing about it - but something biological. Whether you're blessed (or not) with XX or XY chromosomes, your melanin level, you've been traumatised, or something else that you can't change - that's then fused with faux public rage and a victimisation mindset. All of it very theatrical and 'performative'. (A shibboleth word for all wannabe 'identity politicians.') Most characteristic, for this mindset, is a complete disinterest in philosophy, epistemology, history, theology, hermeneutics, history of science, history of religion, languages, unfamiliar cultures, or any other discipline. Most especially the empirical ones. Facts - to the extent that they're taken into account at all, and not simply invented - are always illustrative of some 'a priori' creed, always presented out of context. And of course: the only possible basis for a discussion of ethics, morality, the public good, is their loudly proclaimed 'there's no such thing'. Christopher Lash diagnosed this decades ago in his The Culture of Narcissism. The Frankfurt School analysed these things long before anyone else did - they had, after all, had Weimar Germany before them, as an object lesson. It's the reason they focussed so closely on social psychology - and the reason for their conviction that politics nowadays is not in the least intelligible from any other angle.
The more I think about this topic, the more it strikes me that what's wrong about this position paper is the implied premiss of timelessness. "Freedom of speech and the Consent of the Governed" doesn't mean today what it meant in the course of the US war of independence, what it meant for the authors of the Federalist Papers, what it meant after the Civil War. (Here, as a non-American, I'm falling in line with the usual usage: my - our - war of independence here in The Netherlands was fought again Spain, although we did lose several wars against the UK. We never had a civil war, though we were occupied, at varous times, by the French and then by the Nazis. [The latter was even worse than a civil war.] We did formulate, by the way, the first-ever secular constitution.) It's this 'ahistoricity' that bothers me most about the authors cited in this paper, and the way the argument progresses.
Including the presumption that there really is no independent standpoint possible outside of the now highly politically polarised US polity. I'm not interested in what a 'never-Trumper' has to say. (Sure, civility, important enough on this forum.) I'm not interested in what someone who got famous for claiming that 'the end of history' has arrived has to say. I'm interested in what US intellectuals and constitutional scholars have to say about the really pressing issues of the time: the war in Ukraine, the looming Cold War 2.0 with China (most of all: assurances that it will stay 'cold'), the climate crisis and the political paralysis that seems to accompany it. They are after all sitting in the most powerful country in the world, and they have much more resources at their disposal than the rest of us have.
I have no vote in the 2024 US elections, although its results will affect me directly. (That holds for most of the human race.) As far as RG is concerned: I want to know why, of the 17 million registered RG members, from 20 countries, exactly two, to date, seem interested in this topic at all. (One of whom - a US citizen? - misuses this platform for incendiary rhetoric.) One would have thought that the above-mentioned 'issues of the time' would do much more that just interest all RG members - that there would be hundreds of threads on these issues. There isn't. There's stuff on Covid-19 (also on its social and political consequences), on C02 levels, but there's an odd disinterest in the 'wider picture', in the 'macro' issues. Why is that? Why this apparent disinterest on the only global forum for researchers and scholars?
We, Scientists, should have confidence in Science and defend scientific integrity against all political and lobbyist-driving forces. We have for this purpose a fundamental Right of "Academic Freedom" inscribed in all constitutions to constitute the last rampart against all intellectual abuse. This is our Duty as scholars that goes far beyond research funding and publication.
See also:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_Conscience
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scientific_Integrity_Research_Ethics_and_Higher_Education_Deontology_The_Senior_Scholars_Duty
Philadelphia, PA
Dear all,
I think there is some considerable plausibility in the idea that "identity politics" is (partly) a product of changes in the U.S. university system, the neo-liberal influence on the universities and the general, administrative takeover of the universities. That's perhaps the origin of the first, elite "right-wing" version --which gave preference to "heritage" applicants with connections to alumni including generous doners. In a similar way, the original version of "political correctness" involved not rocking the boat as concerned generous donors and big-ticket federal financing. On the other hand, it is well known that promoting racial and demographic divisions as the basis of U.S. politics was a Marxist theme from the time of Stalinism onward: playing the Americans off against each other and exploiting the openness of American society. This tactic has remained a constant of Anti-Americanism foreign and domestic.
Is freedom of speech "ahistorical," or is it merely of long standing (250 years) and crucial to the tradition of U.S. integrationist style and methods? Again, is the U.S. Constitution "eternal" --somehow written in Plato's heaven or Aristotle's Politics--or is it instead that it has repeatedly stood up to various challenges and political problems? (What is the difference, and how could one decide?) Does "the consent of the governed remain central to democratic forms of government? I submit that it does; and lacking freedom of speech it would be very difficult to know whether the government has the consent of the governed or not. Is this a "timeless" condition of democratic constitutional government? Need we decide?
The U.S. Constitution does provide for a process of amendment, and this provision has repeatedly been employed in times of (or following) political stress. The first ten amendments, known as the U.S. "Bill of Rights" were adopted in the period of the early republic and functioned to resolve many of the doubts of the anti-federalists' opposition to the original document. A second batch of Amendments came after the Civil War, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments which included the abolition of slavery; and a further batch of amendments came along during the U.S. Progressive Era --intended to remedy the flaws which became evident during the Gilded Age.
Thomas Jefferson famously held that we should have a "revolution" every 25 years or so. But, then again, he counted his own election as President in 1800 as "the Revolution of 1800" --turning out the Federalist party of Washington, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.
At the end of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington is reported to have said "I do not expect the Constitution to last for more than 20 years." But today, the United States has oldest written constitution in the world.
It may have some time to go yet.
H.G. Callaway
H.G. Callaway As specified in the essay by Scott, J. W. (2017) "On free speech and academic freedom, AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom, 8, 1-13." There is a fundamental difference between "Academic Freedom (protection of faculty rights based on disciplinary competence) and "Freedom of Speech" (the right to express one’s ideas, however true or false they may be). Academic Freedom defends the pursuit of knowledge, wherever it leads. The pursuit of knowledge is not an elitist activity but a practice vital for the exercise of democracy and the promotion of the common good Academic freedom defends the pursuit of knowledge, wherever it leads. The pursuit of knowledge is not an elitist activity but a practice vital for the exercise of democracy and the promotion of the common good".
Available on
https://freespeech.ucmerced.edu/sites/freespeech.ucmerced.edu/files/documents/on_free_speech_and_academic_freedom_-_courtesy_of_aaup_journal_of_academic_freedom.pdf
Here's my interpretation of the near-total disinterest in this thread that you have started. First of all, it actually is a serious question. (Albeit based on premisses you - and perhaps all of us, those who had placed their trust in the 'Pax Americana' - are not keen to examine. More on that below.) The question really is: "How was it that an appeal to the First Amendment could have been turned into a bludgeon for destroying democracy in America?" To be serious about that requires a thorough understanding of - say - the history of the last several centuries, and a thorough grounding in the social sciences. As a lead-up up to the question which now dominates the Presidential election in your country: is the MAGA-wing of the Republican Party capable of destroying democracy and paving the way for the future global dominance of an ever more confident China/Russia/Global-South axis? Personally, I hope not, and there are a lot of anglophiles out there who share that hope. But you will have to agree that politics in your country is going to keep us all on the edge of our seats right through to November next year.
Oh yes. Three years ago, RG had 17m users, not all of them - based on the intellectual level of most of the comments - researchers and scholars. (To put it diplomatically.) That figure has now become, in all likelihood, 20m users. That's more than the population of The Netherlands, where I live. You've had less than a handful respond to your thread. I'd say that by itself is indicative of something like a 'crisis of the sciences', as Husserl regarded it, before the last of the world wars we've now had to start to give numerical identifiers to keep them apart in our collective memory. The difference between your thread and this one - about philosophy and science - is that here everyone feels 'empowered' to waffle on endlessly about their private opinions: "Can philosophy help to innovate and develop scientific theory?" https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_philosophy_help_to_innovate_and_develop_scientific_theory#view=650a066773800f09bc0f40cf
"Academic Freedom in Turkey", is a chapter by Olga Selin Hünler 2022 in "University Autonomy Decline", Routledge. One may read there "...The state of emergency ended in 2018, but the authoritarian rule of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan continues. After the transition from the parliamentary regime to the presidential system in July 2018, Turkey’s courts lost most of their independence. Investigations and trials on terrorism charges were used to silence academics, intellectuals, journalists, and every other critical voice in the country..."
Available on:
Chapter Academic Freedom in Turkey
One can only adhere to the ultimate call that ends this remarkable research "...the efforts of academics, activists, and students to demand autonomous universities and freedom to teach and learn in a democratic public sphere are becoming more and more vital"
In line with the previous post. Bianet (Released 1 hour ago) In this case, freedom will be won in political arena, not in courtrooms "Rights activists from France having arrived in İstanbul to be in solidarity with academician Pınar Selek in today's hearing of her never-ending case for 25 years, have also commented on the Court of Cassation's Gezi verdict, stating that it is evidence of the collapse of the rule of law in Turkey."...
Read more on: https://bianet.org/haber/in-this-case-freedom-will-be-won-in-political-arena-not-in-courtrooms-285551
See Also: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_and_history_serving_political_and_ideological_totalitarianism/30
In Chapter [1] released 3 days ago, Emotions During the War: Interplay Between Emotions and Information, the author explains how Emotions "can be used as an effective tool in shaping attitudes or influencing the behaviour of citizens" and describes "the relationship between information and emotions as well as the feedback between these two phenomena". The author tries also "to answer the questions, such as, how do the emotions that arise during conflict affect the creation of community and the taking of collective action in a war-affected society? Does the information given during the war differentiate certain emotions and social attitudes?"
[1] Sielska, Z. (2023). Emotions During the War: Interplay Between Emotions and Information. In: Turska-Kawa, A., Kasińska-Metryka, A., Pałka-Suchojad, K. (eds) War in Ukraine. Media and Emotions. Palgrave Macmillan,
See also:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Science_and_history_serving_political_and_ideological_totalitarianism/30
Philadelphia, PA
Dear readers,
Basically, in my considered opinion, there is an effective taboo on discussion of more reasonable conservative ideas --from American sources. On the other hand, the prevalence and influence of European conservative ideas is rarely questioned. This is partly because there is significantly less divisiveness in the ethnically define European nation states. (In effect, "solidarity" between the national right and left in the European nation-state.) But, does anyone doubt the role of "main stream" conservative, economic motivation in the formation and continued existence of the E.U.?
Outrageous American ideas from Mr. Trump & Co., on the other hand, have been widely discussed and condemned--on R.G. and elsewhere. It's easy, congenial "low-hanging fruit." But no country can be effectively governed without the engagement of its more conservative side; and in spite of that, coalition of right and left in Europe falls from view.
The purpose of this thread is to challenge the taboo. One need not be conservative in order to distinguish the better and worse among the conservatives. The better among U.S. conservative defend the freedom of speech --as do the better among their opposition. Its the extremists of right and left which unite in putting freedom of speech under question or doubt.
H.G. Callaway
Disconcerting! There exist right-thinking minds within academia, who find no problem or no moral inhibition in theorizing about acts of Assassination and Preventive Killing. See for example: "Kasher, A., & Yadlin, A. (2005). Assassination and preventive killing. SAIS Rev. Int'l Aff., 25, 41. Available on:
https://www.academia.edu/download/36726823/Assassination_and_Preventive_Killing.pdf
See also:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/War_Peace
J. Chahed always manages to come up with something irrelevant, which he's plucked from the internet somewhere. It contributes nothing to the thread itself. Everyone knows how easy it is to find some 'clickbait' somewhere, and then claim to be scandalised by it. RG seems to have no rules in place that one could appeal to, in such cases of misuse of this forum.
Frederik van Gelder wrote, "J. Chahed always manages to come up with something irrelevant. It contributes nothing to the thread itself... in such cases of misuse of this forum". Thank you for the kind mark of respect. You are probably aware that this discussion thread is about "Freedom of Speech and the Consent of the Governed". This relates to all forms of expression including academic theorization of some kinds of narratives. As for my last post, it refers to a duly published scientific article totally in the vein of the topic with a personal comment. I can understand that you have nothing to add that could bring something to the discussion, but what escapes my understanding is the reason behind your gratuitous attack on contributors to this high-level discussion. Regards and Respect.
H.G. Callaway wrote "The purpose of this thread is to challenge the taboo. One need not be conservative in order to distinguish the better and worse among the conservatives. The better among U.S. conservative defend the freedom of speech --as do the better among their opposition". Thank you for this oh-so-essential clarification. May the contributors to this thread and all others on RG take note and apply it with open minds.
See also:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scientific_Integrity_on_ResearchGate
Philadelphia, PA
Dear all,
The video below is a report from PBS on freedom of speech in the American universities.
"College campuses become focus of debate over what constitutes free speech"
See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff6McQvTFZA&list=PLgawtcOBBjr8Pw-hv_S8pgYPLEZkQ_A-D&index=1
This video runs about 13 Min. It explores student opinion and attempts to restrict freedom of speech --from both the left and right.
Is renewed respect and emphasis on freedom of speech needed? Note the early statement of the President of Cornel University.
Comments invited.
H.G. Callaway
"Colleges have come under fire during the bloodshed, receiving condemnation for either statements from university leadership seen as too weak on Hamas or for defending professors’ right to free speech after they made statements against Israel." "‘No credibility’: Critics cry foul as colleges press for free speech amid Israel-Hamas conflict": https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4265290-no-credibility-critics-foul-colleges-free-speech-israel-hamas-conflict/?email=229c293ea995e1578fb1647d2326a773d688fb52&emaila=e94857eba712ded7644cc979bd29b640&emailb=7e92d089af8162a165a08a015f01a4e1bea27f629bbd1fae614a407241b29280&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=10.20.23%20RS%20Critics%20cry%20foul
I think we have just moved beyond 'freedom of speech' issues. https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_does_it_mean_to_be_objective_in_the_Israel_Hamas_war
Rowan Atkinson ('Mr. Bean') on free speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc
When freedom of speech can cost you your head - Piers Morgan and Bassem Youssef go for round 2 on Israel Hamas War https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAhEt1dvr-k
Where does freedom of speech end and incendiary rhetoric begin? I'd be interested to hear Prof Callaway's views on this. The US court system is about to define where this border lies, we learn, and how it is to be adjudicated. It is not an abstract question: whatever this definition is, it is going to reverberate around the world, not least by being one of the prime factors in the upcoming US Presidential election. (According to the election pundits. The other is, on the face of it, much more apolitical and mundane: abortion rights.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlY-aoSYEHQ&ab_channel=MSNBC
Thesis 1: if the German Court system, during the Weimar Republic, had had this power, there would have been no WWII.
Thesis 2: if the UN (or the International Court of Justice, in The Hague, for which Jack Smith once worked) had had a comparable remit and authority, it would put on trial the entire Hamas leadership - and add The President of Turkije for good measure. (Esteemed President of a Nato member or not. For calling medieval barbarism 'justified resistance' - that is no less incendiary, in its effects on a large and ill-informed population, than a former US President proclaiming the 2020 election to have been 'stolen'.)
ere's a straightforward free speech issue, as we all hold our breath, waiting to see how the US Presidential election unfolds. (We're all going to be affected by this election, world-wide, though it's only US citizens that have the vote. Democracy itself is 'on the line' - there's not much disagreement on this -, and yet the only 'agency' that most of us have is that of the powerless spectator.)
What are your opinions worth - as you're heading for the polling booth - if they are based on illusions? On a conspiracy theory of one type or another?
That this is not an abstract question in the least can be seen from the WaPo (Washington Post) reporting of earlier this week that Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is going to allow political adds to push the dark lie, by the Republican base, that the 2020 election was 'stolen'. So what's your marvellously protected 'opinion' worth, if you believe this, meaning that you can't tell fact from fiction? QUOTE
"Meta will allow political ads on its platforms to question the outcome of the 2020 US presidential election, part of a rollback in election-related content moderation among major social media platforms over the past year ahead of the 2024 US presidential contest. The policy means that Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, will be able to directly profit from political ads that boost false claims about the legitimacy of the 2020 election." ENDQUOTE
Reporting over here: https://edition.cnn.com/business/tech/meta-political-ads-2020-election-lies/index.html
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts