Freedom of speech in context

Economics Political Theory
1

I know that free speech is dependent on property rights, but I have a want to approach this question from a different angle.

Does free speech, in the context of a community or society, justify defamation or libel?

I am inclined to think it does. If free speech is to have any meaning, then people ought to say whatever they want. If they make up some stupid crap that is not true, then surely it would be revealed that he/she is a liar and it would become self-discrediting. So, is the argument for free speech almost a kin to businesses that falsely advertise or misrepresent something?

2

False advertisement is a loose term. What on earth does it mean? If people continue to buy a falsely advertised item while being aware of it. Is it still false advertisement?

Also, no more hate speech. It hurts my feelings and it should be punishable.

3

Check out Walter Block’s Defending the Undefendable, specifically Part III. Available for free here.

Gotta love the Mises Institute.

4

@ Drewie Brando

What about free speech that might emotionally or physcologically harmful?

Libertarians are against physical aggression and coercion … but what about the guy who goes around insulting people - in their deepest integrety - and could, perhaps, cause emotional pain?

How would you respond to such an argument?

I’m currently reading some John Stuard Mills and the harm principle.

5

No, free speech does not imply the right to defame people. Just as the right to sell stuff does not imply the right to pester people.

6

@ Hard Rain

Thanks for the link to that pdf. I had a look at the section on defammation and libel, and I quite like his argument.

7

I am inclined to think it does. If free speech is to have any meaning, then people ought to say whatever they want. If they make up some stupid crap that is not true, then surely it would be revealed that he/she is a liar and it would become self-discrediting. So, is the argument for free speech almost a kin to businesses that falsely advertise or misrepresent something?

The problem is that this would in indicate that you own your reputation.

8

“The problem is that this would in indicate that you own your reputation.”

I’m not sure what this means to be honest.

I find slightly queezy when libertarians talk about “owning” bizarre things. I’m not sure if anyone “owns” my reputation, or my height, or my politeness …

I think my reputation is partly mine.

It’s a slightly strange way to talk about things? Don’t you think …

Edit: Could you please tell me how to quote people on this site … I forgot how to do it.

9

Your reputation is based purely on somebody else’s subjective value judgement, it is not “yours”. In the same way I could say I think a chair is worth $10 and you could say it’s worth $100, but it makes no difference to the actual chair.

Also, you can make quote boxes by using these tags: [quote] text here [/quote]. Remove the *, naturally.

10

The issue is not with “your reputation”, which obviously is unquantifiable. The issue is the act of defaming someone. If the judicial system considers an action harm, the victim can demand compensation.

11

“Smith has a property right to the ideas or opinions in his own head; he also has a property right to print anything he wants and disseminate it. He has a property right to say that Jones is a “thief” even if he knows it to be false, and to print and sell that statement. The counter-view, and the current basis for holding libel and slander (especially of false statements) to be illegal is that every man has a “property right” in his own reputation, that Smith’s falsehoods damage that reputation, and that therefore Smith’s libels are invasions of Jones’s property right in his reputation and should be illegal. Yet, again, on closer analysis this is a fallacious view. For everyone, as we have stated, owns his own body; he has a property right in his own head and person. But since every man owns his own mind, he cannot therefore own the minds of anyone else. And yet Jones’s “reputation” is neither a physical entity nor is it something contained within or on his own person. Jones’s “reputation” is purely a function of the subjective attitudes and beliefs about him contained in the minds of other people. But since these are beliefs in the minds of others, Jones can in no way legitimately own or control them. Jones can have no property right in the beliefs and minds of other people.” ~ Rothbard, http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp

“[P]eople’s subjective attitudes and ideas about someone or his product will fluctuate continually, and hence it is impossible for [anyone] to stabilize his reputation by coercion; certainly it would be immoral and aggressive against other people’s property right to try. Aggressive and criminal, then, either to outlaw one’s competition or to outlaw false libels spread about one or one’s product.” ~ Rothbard, http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp

[I]n the current situation, when false libels are outlawed, the average person tends to believe that all derogatory reports spread about people are true, “otherwise they’d sue for libel.” This situation discriminates against the poor, since poorer people are less likely to file suits against libelers. Hence, the reputations of poorer or less wealthy persons are liable to suffer more now, when libel is outlawed, then they would if libel were legitimate. For in that libertarian society since everyone would know that false stories are legal, there would be far more skepticism on the part of the reading or listening public, who would insist on far more proof and believe fewer derogatory stories than they do now." ~ Rothbard, http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp

12

“The issue is not with “your reputation”, which obviously is unquantifiable. The issue is the act of defaming someone. If the judicial system considers an action harm, the victim can demand compensation.”

Your judicial system is illegitimate. So is your concept of harm.

"Legal and political theory have committed much mischief by failing to pinpoint physical invasion as the only human action that should be illegal and that justifies the use of physical violence to combat it. The vague concept of “harm” is substituted for the precise one of physical violence.[13] Consider the following two examples. Jim is courting Susan and is just about to win her hand in marriage, when suddenly Bob appears on the scene and wins her away. Surely Bob has done great “harm” to Jim. Once a nonphysical-invasion sense of harm is adopted, almost any outlaw act might be justified. Should Jim be able to “enjoin” Bob’s very existence?[14]

Similarly, A is a successful seller of razor blades. But then B comes along and sells a better blade, teflon-coated to prevent shaving cuts. The value of A’s property is greatly affected. Should he be able to collect damages from B, or, better yet, to enjoin B’s sale of a better blade? The correct answer is not that consumers would be hurt if they were forced to buy the inferior blade, although that is surely the case. Rather, no one has the right to legally prevent or retaliate against “harms” to his property unless it is an act of physical invasion. Everyone has the right to have the physical integrity of his property inviolate; no one has the right to protect the value of his property, for that value is purely the reflection of what people are willing to pay for it. That willingness solely depends on how they decide to use their money. No one can have a right to someone else’s money, unless that other person had previously contracted to transfer it to him.

In the law of torts, “harm” is generally treated as physical invasion of person or property. The outlawing of defamation (libel and slander) has always been a glaring anomaly in tort law. Words and opinions are not physical invasions. Analogous to the loss of property value from a better product or a shift in consumer demand, no one has a property right in his “reputation.” Reputation is strictly a function of the subjective opinions of other minds, and they have the absolute right to their own opinions whatever they may be. Hence, outlawing defamation is itself a gross invasion of the defamer’s right of freedom of speech, which is a subset of his property right in his own person.[15]" - MNR, http://mises.org/daily/2120

13

Am I missing something? Just criminalizing physical invasion seems insufficient. Take the example of firing a machine gun at people and by chance not hitting anyone. No physical invasion, so they can’t complain about it.

14

“Am I missing something?”

You are. A lot actually.

I don’t have time now, but if you still don’t get it after reading that. Ask and I’ll highlight the exact paragraphs.

15

Nero,

You should check out Block’s chapter on Free Speech in Defending the Undefendable. Let us know what you think of it.

16

"Defensive violence, therefore, must be confined to resisting invasive acts against person or property. But such invasion may include two corollaries to actual physical aggression: intimidation, or a direct threat of physical violence; and fraud, which involves the appropriation of someone else’s property without his consent, and is therefore “implicit theft.”

Thus, suppose someone approaches you on the street, whips out a gun, and demands your wallet. He might not have molested you physically during this encounter, but he has extracted money from you on the basis of a direct, overt threat that he would shoot you if you disobeyed his commands. He has used the threat of invasion to obtain your obedience to his commands, and this is equivalent to the invasion itself.

It is important to insist, however, that the threat of aggression be palpable, immediate, and direct; in short, that it be embodied in the initiation of an overt act. Any remote or indirect criterion – any “risk” or “threat” – is simply an excuse for invasive action by the supposed “defender” against the alleged “threat.” One of the major arguments, for example, for the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s was that the imbibing of alcohol increased the likelihood of (unspecified) people committing various crimes; therefore, prohibition was held to be a “defensive” act in defense of person and property. In fact, of course, it was brutally invasive of the rights of person and property, of the right to buy, sell, and use alcoholic beverages.

In the same way, it could be held that

  1. the failure to ingest vitamins makes people more irritable, that
  2. the failure is therefore likely to increase crime, and that therefore
  3. everyone should be forced to take the proper amount of vitamins daily.

Once we bring in “threats” to person and property that are vague and future – i.e., are not overt and immediate – then all manner of tyranny becomes excusable. The only way to guard against such despotism is to keep the criterion of perceived invasion clear and immediate and overt. For, in the inevitable case of fuzzy or unclear actions, we must bend over backwards to require the threat of invasion to be direct and immediate, and therefore to allow people to do whatever they may be doing. In short, the burden of proof that the aggression has really begun must be on the person who employs the defensive violence." ~ Rothbard, Right to Self Defense.

17

Oh well. I’m with you, Nero.

Perhaps it’s an anomaly only if we first accept Rothbard’s libertarian code? Perhaps there were good, practical reasons that slander came to be considered a tort by the common law judges who were trying to settle actual disputes and develop a consistent legal code for the benefit of law abiding citizens?

18

Michael J Green,

Do you see defamation as a violation of property rights? If so, why?

19

@ Hard Rain

I see what you mean, but I have put effort and work into moulding my reputation. It is something that I have my life creating …

20

I was convinced that a person does not “own” his reputation the first time I read Block. I am not so convinced that torts should be limited to property rights violations. An orderly society might need rules that deal with more than just property rights.