In the most recent issue of our print magazine, Charlie Cooke explains that support for free speech should be absolute, without regard to whether you agree or disagree with what is being said. (Charlie’s thoughts can be read at the link for 25 cents, which is a bargain since it’s at least a 35-cent article.)
He writes:
Up until now, I have included in all of my defenses of free speech a preamble in which I have explained what I personally thought of the person I was defending. But having watched the manner in which such qualifications have been used during l’affaire Geller, I shall henceforth do no such thing. Instead, I shall briefly establish that my personal views about a person’s character or cause cannot possibly matter one whit in such a case, and then I shall move on to the only important question at hand — which is whether we are to live as free men, at liberty to speak as we wish, or whether we are to self-censor in the hope that the crocodiles will spare us.
This is an important point, and I’d like to supplement it by adding two more arguments that often come up in free-speech discussions. The first is “If they can censor X, they can also censor you or me.” This is often true; today’s world is full of people who see no difference between the crudest hate-filled racist or anti-Semitic rants and, for instance, opposition to same-sex marriage. But it’s just as irrelevant as what Charlie thinks about Pamela Geller’s cartoon contest, because my willingness to defend freedom should not depend on whether its opponents pose a threat to me. Imagine, for example, a constitutional amendment that includes McCain-Feingold’s restrictions on electioneering communications, with its exceptions for media corporations. National Review, as a media corporation, would be in no danger, but that would not soften our opposition in the slightest.
The second common assertion is “Sunshine is the best disinfectant” — the utilitarian argument that broad-based freedom of speech is the best way to make sure that truth and reason will prevail and “hate speech” will be ignored. Here again, there is something to the argument; John Stuart Mill made a similar one. The problem is that it gives censorship advocates an out: The implicit assumption is that all relevant viewpoints will be heard and discussed, which in many real-world situations is not the case. It can even be turned around: The government (it might be said) must intervene in freedom of expression to ensure truly free circulation of ideas, in much the way that antitrust laws (supposedly) regulate the free market in order to save it.
The best argument for free speech is the simplest one: If A wants to say something to B, and B is willing to hear it, it’s none of C’s business. Everything else is just a side issue.