The very phrase “freedom of speech” gives us patriotic goose bumps, evoking proud visions of our Founding Fathers valiantly carving out an island of freedom in a world of tyranny. And yet, when we actually examine the particulars of free speech and of how it should be applied to our society, things get considerably trickier.

“Freedom of Speech” is a lovely expression, but when it comes down to deciding just who should have it — artists, racists, pornographers, etc. — we are lost in seemingly intractable debates. This difficulty stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of just why free speech is valuable at all. Too often we treat it as a mere Shibboleth of democratic culture, or (only slightly better) we defend it in merely constitutional terms, as if we were priests attempting a particularly difficult exegesis of a mysterious pronouncement from the Holy Fathers. The strategies putting the idea of free speech into practice are clearly flawed and are often the source of our headaches. I think a better solution exists. By examining why freedom of speech has any value at all, I think that we can not only formulate a more reasonable (and useful) defense of it, but we can also see that it has an important but often overlooked responsibility.

First, I think it is useful to keep in mind that not all societies value free speech. In fact, most societies that have fallen have done so largely because of people expressing their opinions, openly or covertly. For example, the American, French, and Russian revolutions and the fall of communism in Eastern Europe would not have happened without an exchange of ideas contrary to the ruling powers. Furthermore, I would maintain that even in our own society, free speech does not necessarily have value in itself. The expression of diverse ideas can often cause a lot of discomfort and headaches for everyone, and we must ask — why have it at all?

The reason, I think, comes from a particular vision of society, one which is guided not by the arbitrary whims of a tyrant or oligarchy or even the capricious whims of an unthinking populace as a whole. Rather, I would suggest that freedom of speech has value for a society based on rational debate, a society where the people as a whole have the responsibility to steer their own course in the world. Free speech, then, must be seen as a necessary precondition for this society, not as an end in itself but as a means for attaining the larger goal. I do not wish to argue this point; John Stuart Mill in On Liberty does a much better job, and I think his arguments are quite correct. If I am granted this, then we can see more clearly the value of free speech as a necessary condition for a rationally guided democracy. Through this view, we can see attempts to abridge this freedom not as a merely constitutional issue, but as a fundamental error of society. Without freedom of speech, we cannot even begin to approach this kind of society.

What is more often overlooked is that while freedom of speech is a necessary precondition of a rationally guided society, it is not a sufficient condition. Merely allowing people to speak their minds is not enough. After all, we do that now, and I doubt anyone would claim that our society approaches a rational ideal. Rather, if we want to ascribe free speech any value at all, we must also take upon ourselves the responsibility of discussing what is said.

A plethora of alienated voices shouting at once with no one listening is less than worthless. The good things that this country has done — civil rights, women’s suffrage, etc. — did not emerge from people merely expressing their opinions to whoever would listen. Only when citizens forced a national dialogue on the issues did change for the better occur. We must commit ourselves to arguing for what we believe in and meeting even the most abhorrent views in open debate, not just in the editorial column, not even just on the governmental level, but in our everyday lives. In short, I believe that free speech has no real value without a simultaneous commitment to think about and debate the issues at hand in whatever capacity we can. Our brand of democracy demands far more responsibility than most people realize. Without the majority at least making an attempt to think about what it is doing, we will never improve society. This is the true goal of free speech: the hope that the people as a whole can figure out our problems and ultimately reach a just society. And if this aim is kept in mind, perhaps the debates over free speech will not seem quite so intractable.