Abstract
In this chapter the author examines Hobbes’s argument that the necessary conditions of political power mean the state is absolute. This argument has profound implications for how we think about free speech, because it undermines the liberal argument that civil rights take precedence over the state. The author defends Hobbes’s claims and shows why the liberal constitutional approach of prioritising speech is logically flawed. The value of speech has to be determined by the state rather than philosophical principles, which in liberal societies means through democratic political contestation. It should, therefore, be legislators rather than judges who have the final say on the boundaries of free speech.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Bibliography
Alexander, Larry. 2005. Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2012. “Reply to Berman, Bison, and Schauer.” APA Newsletter on Philosophy and Law 12(1): 12–13.
Barber, Benjamin. 1989. “Liberal Democracy and the Costs of Consent.” In Liberalism and the Moral Life, ed. Nancy Rosenblum, 54–68. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bork, Robert. 1971. “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems.” Indiana Law Journal 47(1): 1–35.
Boyd, Richard. 2001. “Thomas Hobbes and the Perils of Pluralism.” Journal of Politics 63(2): 392–413.
Braddon-Mitchell, David, and Caroline West. 2004. “What Is Free Speech?” Journal of Political Philosophy 12(4): 437–460.
Brison, Susan. 2004. “Book Review of Howarth’s Free Speech.” Mind 113(450): 351–357.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. 1900. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution.Accessed September 9, 2016.
Connolly, William. 1988. Political Theory and Modernity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Dahl, Robert. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
———. 1998. On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Douglas, Mary. 1986. How Institutions Think. New York: Syracuse University Press.
Fish, Stanley. 1994. There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech…and It’s a Good Thing Too. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gauthier, David. 1995. “Public Reason.” Social Philosophy and Policy 12: 19–42.
Gelber, Katharine. 2012. “‘Speaking Back’: The Likely Fate of Hate Speech Policy in the United States and Australia.” In Speech and Harm: Controversies over Free Speech, eds. Ishani Maitra and Mary Kate McGowan, 50–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. 1961. The Federalist Papers, ed. C. Rossiter. New York: Penguin.
Haworth, Alan. 1998. Free Speech. Routledge: London.
Hayek, Friedrich. 1960. The Constitution of Liberty. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hayman, Steven. 2009. “Hate Speech, Public Discourse, and the First Amendment.” In Extreme Speech and Democracy, eds. Ivan Hare and James Weinstein, 158–181. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hobbes, Thomas. 1968. Leviathan, ed. Crawford Brough Macpherson. London: Penguin.
———. 1972. De Cive. London: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights of 1976. http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx. Accessed May 14, 2016.
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination https://www.humanrights.gov.au/guide-law-international-convention-elimination-all-forms-racial-discrimination. Accessed May 12, 2016.
Kahn, Victoria. 2001. “Hobbes, Romance, and the Contract of Mimesis.” Political Theory 29(1): 4–29.
Leiter, Brian. 2015. “The Case against Free Speech.” Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2450866. Accessed July 18, 2016.
Locke, John. 1988. Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter. Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maitra, Ishani, and Mary Kate McGowan. 2012. Speech and Harm: Controversies over Free Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McGowan, Mary Kate. 2012. “On ‘Whites Only’ Signs and Racist Hate Speech: Verbal Acts of Racial Discrimination.” In Speech and Harm: Controversies over Free Speech, eds. Ishani Maitra and Mary Kate McGowan, 121–147. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ridge, Michael. 1998. “Hobbesian Public Reason.” Ethics 108: 538–568.
Schauer, Frederick. 1982. Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schauer, Frederick. 2003. “Intentions, Conventions, and the First Amendment: The Case of Cross Burning.” The Supreme Court Review 6:197–230
Shklar, Judith. 1989. “The Liberalism of Fear.” In Liberalism and the Moral Life, ed. Nancy Rosenblum, 21–38. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smith v California 361 U.S. 147. 1959. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/361/147/case.html. Accessed August 2, 2016.
Steinberger, Peter. 2004. The Idea of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tarlton, Charles. 2001. “The Despotical Doctrine of Hobbes, Part 1: The Liberalization of Leviathan.” History of Political Thought 22: 587–618.
———. 2002. “The Despotical Doctrine of Hobbes, Part II: Aspects of the Textual Sbstructure of Tyranny in Leviathan.” History of Political Thought XXIII: 61–89.
Tourkochoriti, Ioanna. 2014. “Should Hate Speech Be Protected? Group Defamation, Party Bans, Holocaust Denial and the Divide between (France) Europe and the United States,” at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400105. Accessed September 2, 2016.
van Mill, David. 2006. Deliberation, Social Choice, and Absolutist Democracy. London: Routledge.
Villa, D. 2006. “Book Review of The Idea of the State.” Political Theory 34/6: 832–836.
Weinstein, James. 2009. “An Overview of American Free Speech Doctrine and Its Application to Extreme Speech.” In Extreme Speech and Democracy, eds. Ivan Hare and James Weinstein, 81–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Mill, D. (2017). An “Unprincipled” Approach to Free Speech. In: Free Speech and the State. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51635-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51635-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-51634-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-51635-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)