The people who's slogan is in favor of free speech in the recent campus protests to shut down a speaker or presentation is actually a position in favor of regulated speech, totally free speech waiting include the heckler.
These groups trying to give talks book for a specific space and the specific time in advance, and publicize about it including at the entrance, to allow people control/free choice/freedom in whether they experience it. And they favor using coercion forced to shut down other people speech, in that space at the same time, to preserve the existence/integrity of their own speech. So they are not pro free-speech as far as meaning anarchy and no legislation on speech at all, but are pro regulated speech to enable/promote/protect a difference, deeper, more important type of free speech, one in which the individual with a unique opinion can be heard and the diversity of speech/of views/of expressed views this condition entails.
This is just like the Lockean notion of restricting some freedom, to some property that is legitimately taxed away, to the right to catch and punish wrongdoers/rights violators, and certain other things, to secure liberty in other areas and make them more reliable, which must be a more valuable type of liberty.
So these are both examples of the principle that it can be legitimate to sacrifice some liberty of a smaller amounts or less or type for the sake of a greater or deeper liberty.
Socialists want to take this one step further, and say it's legitimate to sacrifice further on liberty so conceived when it comes to taxes and regulation, property rights in general, in order to secure a deeper freedom, positive freedom that is, for everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment