C339 Freedom of Speech

Course Description

"Persecution for the expression of opinion seems to me to be perfectly logical."

-- Justice Oliver Wendell Homes
          Abrams v. U.S. (1919)

 

"This is America not Russia, ain't it? We got free speech here, don't we? That means I can say whatever I ********* want and no one can stop ... "

CLICK

"Caller, are you still there?"

-- Local Radio Talk Show in Louisville, KY 1996

C339 Freedom of Speech is designed to introduce students to public arguments and debates -- controversies -- in which "free speech," "freedom of speech," and sometimes "freedom of expression" play a central role. Freedom of speech is generally considered to be the cornerstone of American-style democracy and no one who serioulsy considers themselves to be "American" would be so foolish as to oppose the value of "free speech" -- at least in the abstract.  But therein lies the rub, for determining the boundaries of the meaning and use of “free speech” in practice has seldom been a simple or uncontested matter.  To begin, there is the question: What do we mean by speech?  Does it really only apply to the spoken word?  Or does it function metaphorically to characterize all forms of expression from oral communication to painting, photography, statuary, etc.  Is speech merely a symbolic mode of representing ideas, feelings, and emotions (“Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never harm me!), or is speech a consequential mode of action?  If the later, and if we hold people responsible for the consequences of their action, how do we (or should we) distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable consequences of speech acts?  Once such issues are settled – and in practice they never seem to be so for very long – does the commitment to “free speech” give one the right to should “fire” in a crowded theater?  To verbally assault pregnant women entering an abortion clinic or to taunt individuals wearing animal fur?  To produce and distribute pornography?  To burn the American flag or to desecrate vaunted religious symbols?  To solicit for a charity in the local shopping mall?  To falsely advertise a commercial product?  To expose corporate trade secrets by posting DVD encryption software on the WWW?  Or alternately, does the First Amendment allow the possibility of restricting certain speech acts through “campus speech codes,” “community standards,” or state or federal laws like the Communication Decency Act or the Patriot Act?  What criteria should guide such regulations?  And further, who should make such decisions?  The police?  The legislature?  The Courts?  Local school boards?  Regulatory agencies?  Public opinion leaders like Larry Flynt or Jerry Falwell?  Philosophers and public intellectuals?  The “culture industry”?  Corporate boards?  Ordinary citizens (“a jury of one’s peers”)?  And the list goes on.  These are all issues that any responsible citizen needs to be able to understand, negotiate, and speak to sensibly and effectively in public forums, but where is one to begin?
 
The primary goal in this class is to provide students with a background that will enable them to interpret, evaluate, (and most importantly) to contribute critically and creatively to public debates that involve the freedom of speech and expression.  Our focus will be on how the phrase “free speech” has functioned as one of the primary sites in the crucible of public debate for negotiating the tension between individual “liberty” and socio-political “order” in American-style liberal-democracy.  We will move to our goal by examining  the rhetorical history of “free speech” – what it has meant, how its meaning has changed across time, and how it has come to mean – as both an index of the political culture at a particular moment in time and as a context for imagining the creative possibilities for negotiating the ideological tensions endemic to liberal-democracy in late modernity.  While we cannot hope to cover the complete history of “free speech” in the United States in this class, by the end of the semester students will develop a critical understanding of the range of competing arguments employed to justify expanding or restricting the meaning of “free speech” in a liberal-democratic society, as well as an understanding of the effectivity and implications of such arguments as they function in public controversies.

 

TEXTBOOKS

Chang, Nancy. Silencing Political Dissent: How Post-September 11 Anti-Terrorism Measures Threaten Our Civil Liberties. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2002.

Sunstein, Cass. Republic.com. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2002.

Tedford, Thomas, and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States, 4th ed. State College, PA: Strata Pub., 2001.

 

 

Return to Course Home Page