Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Free Speech and the State pp 39–78Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

An “Unprincipled” Approach to Free Speech

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 524 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

  • Alexander, Larry. 2005. Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. “Reply to Berman, Bison, and Schauer.” APA Newsletter on Philosophy and Law 12(1): 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bork, Robert. 1971. “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems.” Indiana Law Journal 47(1): 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, Richard. 2001. “Thomas Hobbes and the Perils of Pluralism.” Journal of Politics 63(2): 392–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braddon-Mitchell, David, and Caroline West. 2004. “What Is Free Speech?” Journal of Political Philosophy 12(4): 437–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brison, Susan. 2004. “Book Review of Howarth’s Free Speech.” Mind 113(450): 351–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, Robert. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, Mary. 1986. How Institutions Think. New York: Syracuse University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, Stanley. 1994. There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech…and It’s a Good Thing Too. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, David. 1995. “Public Reason.” Social Philosophy and Policy 12: 19–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. 1961. The Federalist Papers, ed. C. Rossiter. New York: Penguin.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haworth, Alan. 1998. Free Speech. Routledge: London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, Friedrich. 1960. The Constitution of Liberty. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, Thomas. 1968. Leviathan, ed. Crawford Brough Macpherson. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1972. De Cive. London: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maitra, Ishani, and Mary Kate McGowan. 2012. Speech and Harm: Controversies over Free Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ridge, Michael. 1998. “Hobbesian Public Reason.” Ethics 108: 538–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, Frederick. 1982. Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, Frederick. 2003. “Intentions, Conventions, and the First Amendment: The Case of Cross Burning.” The Supreme Court Review 6:197–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Shklar, Judith. 1989. “The Liberalism of Fear.” In Liberalism and the Moral Life, ed. Nancy Rosenblum, 21–38. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarlton, Charles. 2001. “The Despotical Doctrine of Hobbes, Part 1: The Liberalization of Leviathan.” History of Political Thought 22: 587–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002. “The Despotical Doctrine of Hobbes, Part II: Aspects of the Textual Sbstructure of Tyranny in Leviathan.” History of Political Thought XXIII: 61–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villa, D. 2006. “Book Review of The Idea of the State.” Political Theory 34/6: 832–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Western Australia, Nedlands, West Australia, Australia

    David van Mill

Authors
  1. David van Mill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation