Freedom, Justice, and Racism: Ethics of Speech and Equality

Free Speech and the Prohibition of Ideas

Courts have often supported laws and policies that prohibit the public expression of certain obscene words, but should it ever be justified to prohibit the expression of certain ideas or beliefs? In Germany, for instance, Hitler's Mein Kampf cannot be published or sold — a policy worth examining carefully.

In the United States, which is built upon the cornerstone of free speech, it would never be appropriate to prohibit the expression of certain ideas and beliefs. In fact, such speech would usually fall under the rubrics of either political speech or religious speech, which receive the greatest protection under the Supreme Court's interpretations of the First Amendment. The freedom of speech is so closely associated with the American identity that challenging it would literally challenge the bedrock of the nation.

However, the United States has a different history than Germany. In Germany, hate speech led to the Holocaust, an event that continues to define Germany for much of the world and for many Germans. Moreover, it is important to recognize that the Holocaust was only the last in a series of anti-Semitic legal and social actions that had occurred in Germany. Germany must consider that history when evaluating what legislation is appropriate for its country and its people. When one considers that unique past, it is very difficult to argue that Germans should allow the publishing or sale of Mein Kampf.

Mill on Suppressing False Doctrines

It is important to understand that John Stuart Mill's argument that society should not suppress doctrines commonly believed to be wrong is not based on tolerance. Instead of tolerance, Mill wants debate. He believes that introducing conflict into discourse is the means of creating faster progress across all sectors of society. Mill wants to avoid social stagnation, and he holds that the competition resulting naturally from the unfettered spread of ideas is the best way to prevent it.

Darwinism, Creationism, and Academic Context

The premise that universities uniformly reject the Genesis explanation deserves some qualification. In most accredited universities, the Darwinian explanation of species is accepted in science classes. However, the explanation found in the Book of Genesis, or in other religious texts, may be perfectly acceptable in religious studies or mythology classes. Which explanation is accepted depends greatly on the context.

It is appropriate for a university to require that its science graduates leave with a baseline knowledge of scientific facts as currently understood by the scientific community. Whether Mill would agree is less certain. He would want the community to debate the issue, but having a university limit acceptable answers within a specific disciplinary context is not the same as stifling speech. After all, a professor who assigned students a prompt about Romeo and Juliet could hardly be expected to accept an answer detailing black holes. As long as a venue still exists for people to assert creationism as their scientific belief, Mill would likely not require universities to accept that answer in a science course; doing so would infringe upon the freedoms of the entire university and harm its standing in the academic community.

Flag Burning as Political Speech

Public burning of the American flag should be protected under the First Amendment. What could be a more powerful example of symbolic political speech than the burning of a country's flag? Anyone who questions how potent a statement a burning flag makes need only observe how intensely people react to the very idea of it. The act sends a visceral message, and because that message is political, it is precisely the type of speech that deserves protection.

That does not mean that a person who supports the right to burn the flag endorses the act itself. As an American, the idea of someone desecrating a flag — and by extension, desecrating America — is a deeply disturbing one. Nevertheless, political speech will always deserve to reach at least a portion of its intended audience. The Supreme Court affirmed this protection in Texas v. Johnson (1989), ruling that flag burning constitutes symbolic speech shielded by the First Amendment.