
I am by no means a free speech absolutist. In an article at Postliberal Order a couple of years ago, I set out the natural law position on the issue, noting that the teleology or final cause of our rational and communicative faculties entails not only a broad range of freedom of expression, but also definite limits. There can be no natural right to expression that is positively contrary to what is good for us, given our nature as rational social animals. However, that by no means entails that just any old limitation on free speech imposed in the name of a good cause is a good idea, or even justifiable in principle.
I won’t repeat here everything I said in the earlier article, but the relevant principles are as follows. Natural rights, in general, exist for the purpose of facilitating the realization of the ends toward which our nature directs us. In the case of our rational and communicative powers, that end is the discovery and dissemination of what is true and good. We have a natural right to speech that facilitates this end. And while that entails that there is no right to express erroneous or bad ideas as such, it nevertheless does allow for a wide range of freedom to express even ideas that are erroneous or bad. The reason is that, given the limitations on our cognitive powers, we are bound to fall into error sometimes, and the normal means of correcting these errors is the give and take of discussion and debate. Furthermore, those who would censor erroneous and bad ideas are (since they are no less human than anyone else) themselves prone to error, and therefore may end up censoring true and good ideas.
There is a presumption, then, in favor of free expression, precisely because it facilitates the natural end of our rational powers. However, not all forms of expression are protected by this presumption, because not all forms of expression have anything to do with our rational powers. For example, pornography does not appeal to our rationality and in no way contributes to discovering truth or to debate by which we might root out error. It appeals instead to our appetites, and in a way that corrupts them. In particular, it fosters and even habituates sexual desire that is disordered in its intensity and its objects. It thereby corrupts sexual morals and weakens the institution of the family, the foundation of all social order. Accordingly, pornography is in no way protected by the natural right to free speech.
There are also ideas that not only are erroneous or bad, but have a tendency to positively frustrate the pursuit of truth and the living of good lives. Examples would be views that deny the very reality of truth or goodness as objective features of the world. Since the purpose of the right to free expression is to safeguard the pursuit and dissemination of what is true and good, it can hardly protect speech that denies the very reality of the true and the good. Hence, there can be no natural right to promote such ideas. There may, under certain circumstances, be good prudential reasons to tolerate them, but not because suppressing them would be inherently unjust.
The case for (certain kinds of) censorship
Which forms of expression should the state prohibit, then? To start with, the least controversial examples, it should prohibit libelous and slanderous speech, and speech that directly incites violence against some individual or group.
That pornography should be outlawed is now a more controversial claim than it used to be, but it should not be controversial. From a natural law point of view, this is not a difficult case at all. Pornography should simply be banned. To be sure, there are materials concerning which one can make a case for toleration (for example, novels or mainstream movies that are not pornographic works but do have salacious content). But this is not so where straightforwardly pornographic materials are concerned. (Naturally, the argument for this claim presupposes the general natural law account of sexual morality. I’m aware that not every reader will accept that account, but my point is that if one accepts it, together with the natural law account of the foundations of natural rights, the case for outlawing pornography is obvious. I’ve defended the natural law approach to sexual morality in other writings.)
In a forthcoming article at Postliberal Order, I argue that governments have a right under natural law to prohibit flag burning, understood as a public expression of contempt for one’s country. On the one hand, such a prohibition in no way frustrates the expression of or debate about any idea (since any idea that could be expressed by burning the flag could be expressed instead in words). And on the other hand, showing such public contempt for one’s country offends against the virtue of piety and can destabilize the social order by encouraging others to have a similar contempt. But whether a particular government should actually exercise its natural right to ban this particular form of expression is a matter for prudential judgment and depends on circumstances.
What about the expression of ideas that positively frustrate the pursuit of what is true or good? Here, the clearest cases concern contexts where such ideas might influence the young, who, because they are more ignorant and inexperienced, and governed more by feeling than reason, are least likely to be able to see what is wrong with such ideas. Hence, consider cognitive or moral relativist theories that deny the reality of truth or goodness as objective features of the world. Or consider theories that are inherently subversive of the social order and pit one group against another, such as Nazism, Marxism, and Critical Race Theory. Or theories which promote gravely disordered sexual desires, and thus inculcate sexual vice in the young and destabilize the family. It is simply common sense that there cannot be a right to teach such ideas to young people, such as high schoolers (let alone even younger children). The state may and ought to prohibit the dissemination of such ideas in primary and secondary education.
Things are more complicated where higher education is concerned. Certainly, the state should in no way and under no circumstances actively promote such evil ideas in any context, including higher education. But what about merely tolerating them? Here, there is no “one size fits all” answer, and much depends on the judgment of prudence. There can be special circumstances where the state has an interest in rooting out such ideas. For example, you would not want to tolerate having many Critical Race Theorists on the faculties of the military academies, because their ideas are positively subversive of allegiance to the country that warriors are supposed to be protecting.
The case against (other kinds of) censorship
But policing academia in general is much trickier. Government regulators are highly unlikely to be sufficiently good judges of ideas, given the people who would be appointing them. Liberal politicians tend to be suckers for every idiotic academic fad that comes down the pike, while conservative politicians tend to be philistines. Any regulation of academic discussion coming from either left-wing flakes or right-wing yahoos would be ham-handed at best and do much more harm than good. Hence, in a university context, it is, in general, best to combat erroneous ideas through the give and take of free debate.
Something similar can be said of public debate in the world beyond academia, especially in a pluralistic society like the U.S., whose constitution and political culture have long idealized the free exchange of ideas (even if, in practice, not always doing so consistently or well). When it comes to bad ideas concerning political philosophy, public policy, and the like (as opposed to defamatory speech, incitement to violence, pornographic expression, and the like), it is better to fight them through the give and take of debate rather than through censorship.
The COVID-19 pandemic vividly illustrated how dangerous it can be for even intelligent and well-informed people with good intentions to try to police such speech. One side tried, in the name of public health, to shout down critical discussion of policies that imposed severe costs on millions, yet whose scientific and moral justifiability was far from certain. The other side, rightly alarmed at this, overreacted by too willingly embracing crackpot medical ideas and conspiracy theories. The first side then condemned this overreaction, arrogantly oblivious to its own responsibility for causing it.
In this case, preemptively shutting down debate was especially unreasonable given how poorly understood the virus was at first, and how draconian and untested the methods employed for dealing with it were. But even in the case of matters that are very well understood, it is generally a bad idea to try to suppress dissent by force of law. Human beings are, by nature, rational animals. True, they very commonly use their rational powers badly, and are prone to all sorts of error and irrational thinking. But because they are rational animals, they are, naturally, prone to accept ideas only when they can see why they are reasonable and have a choice about whether to embrace them. They do not react well to having ideas forced on them that they don’t understand or agree with, even when those ideas are correct and resistance to them is unreasonable. For the sake of social harmony, then, there is a strong presumption against censoring public discussion and debate over matters of policy, political philosophy, and the like.
In theory, there are cases where this presumption can be overridden. But I would suggest that a necessary condition for such censorship is that it meets all of the following criteria:
1. It should concern expression that is inherently contrary to the common good, and in particular that attacks the prerequisites of living together as a community of rational animals.
Again, I would argue that examples of expression that meet this condition include: libelous or slanderous speech; the incitement of violence against particular individuals or groups; pornographic expression; direct assaults on the virtue of piety, such as public actions intended to foster contempt for one’s country; ideas that challenge the very reality of truth or goodness; and ideologies that promote social conflict by demonizing entire groups of human beings, or which directly promote grave vices such as sexual immorality. (This list is meant to be illustrative, not exhaustive.) As I have said, there may be pragmatic reasons why a government should tolerate such errors, but it cannot be wrong in principle to suppress them.
Now, the point is that these sorts of expressions are direct assaults on the good of individuals and societies. Defamatory speech, by destroying one’s reputation, can make it extremely difficult or impossible to engage in everyday social life (by securing employment, for example). This is even more obviously true of speech that causes others to live under the threat of violence. A culture that is so awash in pornography that even children have easy access to it will inevitably inculcate widespread and deeply ingrained sexual vice, which is contrary to both our social nature (since it destabilizes the family) and our rational nature (given that, as Aquinas teaches, sexual vice has an even greater tendency than other vices do to blind the intellect). The proliferation of ideas that promote hatred of one’s country or of large groups of one’s fellow citizens radically undermines social harmony. And so on.
Contrast these examples with the following: disagreements over particular policy proposals (concerning taxation, immigration, health care policy, foreign policy, or the like); disagreement with or dislike of some particular individual politician or political party; disagreements about particular moral issues or matters of political philosophy (of the kind that always inevitably arise in political debate, journals of opinion, the classroom, etc.); disagreements about particular matters of empirical fact, concerning current events, history, science, etc.; and so on.
These sorts of disagreements, even when heated, are a normal part of social and political life and in no way intrinsically at odds with the good of individuals or societies. And even when erroneous opinions about such matters result from outright deception or intellectual dishonesty, they rarely strike at the very roots of the social order. Moreover, it is, in any case, simply unrealistic to suppose that government can, in general, effectively separate such lies from the honest mistakes and exaggerations human beings are commonly prone to. Hence, these are matters where government should not interfere with speech, but rather let error be corrected via the give and take of free debate.
2. It should clearly be motivated by service to the common good, rather than the narrow interests of some particular party or leader.
The point here is that it is not good enough for a policy of censorship actually to have sound reasons in its favor. It must be motivated by those reasons, and be widely perceived as having such a motivation. Even the best policy is likely to backfire if it is widely perceived to be motivated instead by corruption or a personal grudge on the part of some leader, or by an attempt by one party or ideology to silence reasonable dissent.
This does not mean that every single citizen has to think the policy has a good motivation. That would, of course, be an unrealistically stringent standard. But a critical mass of the population has to be able to see it that way. Think of the way that, in wartime, the bulk of the population often gives the government the benefit of the doubt where certain censorship is concerned, because it knows that certain matters have to be kept secret for the sake of national security. Certainly, this was true in the days of World War II, for example.
Of course, things are different now, and distrust of governmental authority is much higher. But that makes it even more important (not less) for a critical mass of the population to be able to believe that a censorship policy is at least intended to serve the common good rather than some narrow personal or partisan interest. From the point of view of natural law, the whole point of suppressing certain kinds of expression is to preserve the social order and the common good. Hence, a policy that will, in practice, tend only further to divide an already highly polarized society can hardly be justified on natural law grounds.
For these reasons, even when a policy of censorship has good arguments in its favor, it should in general not be pursued except by leaders known for the utmost probity and statesmanship. Otherwise, it is likely to do more harm than good.
3. It should be calmly and carefully thought out, not impulsive.
Censorship, like war, is so grave in its consequences that even when it is justifiable, it should never be resorted to lightly. Hence, a policy of censorship should never be implemented except after careful and dispassionate study. Major events that trigger strong emotions (such as the rapid spread of COVID-19 in early 2020 and the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk) often lead to calls for censorship. But censorship policies proposed under such circumstances are the least likely to be justifiable, because they result more from emotion than reason.
4. It should, as far as possible, be implemented in general rules, rather than in ad hoc directives or other exercises of discretionary power.
This condition is a corollary of the second and third conditions. Where some individual or agency has arbitrary power to censor speech, it is far more likely that such censorship will result from the passions of the moment than careful and dispassionate analysis, and that it will reflect personal or partisan interests rather than be directed to the common good. There is also the consideration that social order requires predictability, and thus the rule of law rather than governance by whim.
In light of these criteria, what should we think of recent Trump administration policies that have been characterized as exercises in censorship? The answer is that it depends on which policies we are talking about. In the case of eliminating federal funding for DEI programs, rooting “woke” ideologies out of the military academies, and the like, I would say that these measures are all justifiable. One might quibble over details of implementation, but the basic policies are sound, because these ideas are poisonous and divisive and should have no influence on or support from the government.
But things are very different with some of what has been said and done over the last couple of weeks, in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Attorney General Pam Bondi has spoken of “going after” those who engage in vaguely defined “hate speech,” and of prosecuting printing businesses that refuse to print Charlie Kirk posters. While ABC was in my view correct to suspend Jimmy Kimmel for an unjust and inflammatory remark, it did so in part under threat from FCC chairman Brendan Carr, whose action has been compared by Republican Senator Ted Cruz to that of a mafia boss. President Trump has suggested that because the negative press coverage he has received is, in his view, excessive, it is “no longer free speech” and “illegal.”
These remarks and actions are foolish and irresponsible. They are bad in themselves because they clearly do not meet the criteria set out in 1-4 above. They also threaten to discredit the good things the Trump administration is doing, because they give its enemies ammunition by lending plausibility in the public mind to the tiresome charge of “fascism.”
Defenders of the administration will point out that left-wingers who promoted “cancel culture,” cheered Trump’s being kicked off of social media, suppressed speech during the pandemic, etc., have little standing to complain. That is correct. But it is also irrelevant. It’s a cliché to say that two wrongs don’t make a right, but it is also true. Statesmanship requires doing whatever is possible to repair social divisions, not exacerbating them further in the interests of getting revenge on those who first caused them.
(Editor’s note: This essay was first posted, in slightly different form, on the author’s blog, and is posted here with the kind permission of the author.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
One can only wonder what Dr Feser would comment on Islam?
About Islam, the response might come at two levels.
The FIRST is relational and what Benedict identified as “pathologies of religion” and willfulness:
“A partisan image of God, which identifies the absoluteness of God with one’s own community or its interests, thereby elevating something empirical and relative to a state of absoluteness, dissolves law and morality . . . We see this in the terrorists’ ideology of martyrdom, which of course in individual cases may also be the expression of despair at the lawlessness of the world. Sects in the Western world also provide examples of irrationality and a perversion of religion that show how dangerous religion becomes when it loses its orientation” (“Values in a Time of Upheaval”, Ignatius Press, 2005, p.109).
The SECOND might be more inside the Qur’anic bubble.
Instead of any rogue freedom of speech (Feser’s topic), the issue might be fatal silences…. As when the Qur’an reveres the “Law of Moses” (the Commandments as the natural law) but then omits explicit mention of the six prohibitive commandments, leaving a moral vacuum filled by several cobbled-in jihadist exhortations. And, the substitution of the LOGOS (enabling a role of reason in human affairs) with the Qur’an itself, and the principle of “abrogation”—even as the substitute for the non-demonstrable first principle of non-contradiction. And, yet, in “fitrah” (the “germ of Islam”) Islam affirms the inborn human orientation toward God (part of the natural law), but then denies human free will (another part of the natural law) in the presence of a God who is totally transcendent, inscrutable and deterministic—but who dispenses “mercy”, especially to members of the ummah, but not to infidels.
A parallel and heterogenous universe dating from the 7th Century. (The poetic idiom almost reminds us of Teilhard de Chardin’s inevitable cosmogenesis “theology” which also silences any attention to universal original sin in a fallen world.)
SUMMARY: The arbitrary “willfulness” of God, from which any departure—as in a distinct domain and discourse within Western civil society—is regarded as a separate “autonomy” from the autonomy of God who alone is great—and blasphemy. Radical secularism takes God out of the public forum, and radical Islam takes the public forum out of Man.
“Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.” William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
Kudos to Dr. Feser for this brilliant and insightful analysis of the natural law foundation of the human right to free speech. As an attorney I can say that in my experience the legal establishment would benefit greatly from a deep reading of this article. Sadly my profession has been at the forefront of enabling the corruption of virtue and civic piety which seems to have only descended deeper into the mire during my 46 years of practice. I would only suggest that an analysis of the speech of Democrat politicians’ and leaders’ statements about undermining law enforcement and calls for violence against those they view as “conservatives” or “MAGA” folks would have provided a counterbalance to the criticisms of the current Administration, which would have given this excellent article a more even-handed tone. But overall Dr. Feser’s insights are a much-needed discussion of the purpose and proper limits of free speech.
I think experience has proved that good words alone cannot keep a society or even an individual on the right path; the words will be ignored when inconvenient and otherwise interpreted in such a way as to produce the desired powers or restrictions. Lawyers have very much made a game of this, using techniques that were once rightly called sophistry, but theologians and clergymen have done worse, because they apply sophistry to sacred texts. (I am not speaking of ALL lawyers, theologians, or clergy, of course, but enough go wrong to make it clear that the title alone is no guarantee of honesty.)
We have tried nearly every form of government, from rule by priests and kings to aristocracy to democracy, and they all end the same way, with bad men in power, using the law as a cudgel to take what they want and destroy what displeases them. I suspect that this is one of the lessons we are meant to learn from history. It doesn’t matter how the sheep set up their government; they are still stupid sheep and will continue to go astray until the Shepherd returns to put them right.
Stanley: I am not a professional who is competent to comment on how to legislate matters of this issue; but I can’t refrain on pointing out that this current administration is doing a number of things toward limiting free speech in a very dangerous ways. Many red flag 🚩 needs to be to be thrown up.
maybe it will offset some of the speech oppression Biden did during covid!
More progressive NPR talking points 🙄. The progressive democrats you support and defend are far greater threats to freedom of speech than any Republican on his worst day.
Thank you. I am glad that you are still free to write this article. Am praying that future demagogues do not add the power of a mature AI to oppress all opposition with the Trump playbook. Mussolini began as a communist before he coined fascism. He was a criminal clown but many dictators learned from his methods. There was nothing clownish about Franco or Hitler. Dictators hate all critics, especially comedians.
Beware! Hitler and Caesar began their political careers in a republic. It’s not just the communists who use democracies to worm their way into dictatorial control.
Demagogue: a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.
Trump is demagogue following the “dictator’s playbook” to model a blueprint for seizing power:
– Cult of personality triumphant over the rule of law (Trump 2028…Putin and Xi found a fig leaf…)
– Religious devotion through symbols, complete with martyrs (or nearly in the case of Trump himself)
– Mass mobilization
– Military control of the metropolitan strongholds of the opposition
– Suppression of free speech, especially of the press and most effectively critical
– Cozy relationships with sympathetic dictators
– etc.
You’re paranoid.
It’s ironic that he writes Demagogue: “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.” as the democrats insist on ever more subsidies for illegals because of the “Affordable Care Act”.
TDS needs a spot in the DSM.
Speaking of the DSM, the MAGA Fabulist Santos has a Göring thing going. Even after having fun in prison, it is unlikely that he will be fit enough for a military commander title to satisfy Hegseth. Perhaps Santos (Saint;) could have some religious role in 2028?
https://miscellanynews.org/2025/04/30/humor/george-santos-announces-bid-to-be-next-pope/
Well, we might have to wait his turn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj8lVuEUjlI
Just stop. At this point, TDS is inappropriate and unbecoming. If a democrat was doing exactly what Trump is doing, you’d have no problem with any of it.
“If a democrat was doing exactly what Trump is doing, you’d have no problem with any of it.”
You cannot know this since you are not me. Instead of lashing out and calling me deranged (TDS), try offering less deranged comments yourself and actually provide some evidence to refute my observations.
For the record, you are wrong about me not calling out Dems. I spent decades doing so to defend pro-life in the fierce arena of politics.
My main point is that others – more capable and dangerous people like Obama – can copy the methods our demagogue clown-in-chief. If Trump can try for 2028, why can’t Obama? And then 2032, 2036, long after Trump has died and his crypto rich kids locked up?
God’s Fool: you are not a fool. Here you speak truth!
Says you? It’s worthless.
the left won’t really let you express your views
I see it in my own family, and make it a point to only discuss the ole days, the task at hand and to exclude politics and things like people graduating the ever more expensive K-12 public system and not being able to read.
“While ABC was in my view correct to suspend Jimmy Kimmel for an unjust and inflammatory remark, it did so in part under threat from FCC chairman Brendan Carr…”
****
It’s a business. ABC worried about losing viewers & advertisers, too. If a program alienates enough viewers it’s not a good business model.
Some businesses make their bread and butter by appealing to niche markets. Various things the NFL has done over the past decade or so have guaranteed that I will not watch them, even when I can do so for free, but I’m no longer in their target demographic. Likewise, their decision to invite “Bad Bunny” for the upcoming Super Bowl halftime show has offended many of their consumers, but since they’re still raking in billions, they don’t seem to care.
I suspect that late-night comedy is largely a thing of the past, regardless of the host’s politics. It lasted longer than Saturday-morning cartoons, but changes in how people access content probably doom it to the same fate.
If you think the NFL is doing those things out of error, and I’m not presuming you are- you’d be mistaken.
There’s two reasons:
First, they are looking to attract female fans, who will spend lavishly on “merch”. Nothing stupider than a 5-6 inch, 130 pound woman who wearing a size 52 jersey cut for a 240 pound linebacker in pads like a dress-but that’s where we are.
We are not mountain goats and were not met to collide with each other. That player who blisters 40 yards in 4.4 seconds and has a 40-inch vertical generates a lot of momentum there’s only a thin layer of fluid between that brain and the skull-and just like the unbuckled driver when the object is violently decelerated, the driver hits the vehicle. If you are talking about the latest contrived flashpoint, you aren’t talking about Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, ALS and dementia.
If the Pope wanted to talk about a real case of predation despised as the entertainment market, he’d talk about that clubby little group of people who strip mine municipal treasuries to build wasteful coliseums that have no use other than football and prey on a disordered city affinity and appetite for combat. Then on the Lord’s Day, young physically gifted men with youthful delusions of invincibility go to war with each other, so conniving old men can go to the bank and lunch together on Monday.
We’ll know we’re getting somewhere when Notre Dame stops cashing checks written with grey matter ink and apologizes for sponsoring violence despised as sport.
the Romans used lions and convicts we use football…
I obviously think the NFL is wrong, but perhaps not in a financial sense. Certainly they are not wrong in an IMMEDIATE financial sense, but no one can be sure how such things will play out over the years.
The point simply is that few businesses depend on the goodwill of every living human being, or even every living American. The NFL can freely offend me, because I wasn’t buying their tickets, their gear, or even watching their broadcasts anyhow. Likewise with Nike, Bud Light, and Kimmel. Elon Musk can offend me, because I will not be buying a launch from SpaceX, or even a Tesla, and I’ve never had an account on Twitter/X. Mark Zuckerberg can offend me, because I’ve long since deleted my Facebook account. Offending people like me costs such businesses (or business owners) little to nothing, but it MIGHT secure the support of people who are actually interested in their businesses. Or, that might not be enough, as is perhaps the case with Kimmel.
Of course, businesses can and do make mistakes, which is why we don’t see Sears or Blockbuster Video anymore.
A more interesting case, though not exactly a business case, is the way the Left has turned against American Jews. For a very long time, a strong majority of American Jews have leaned left, and they were an important part of the Democratic Party. I doubt that replacing them with American Muslims is a winning formula, but clearly the powers that be on the left disagree. This doesn’t seem to be working out for them so far; it will be interesting to see how this develops.
yes, what are they thinking on BB?
It’s sad what’s happened to football.
I just watch college football when I can.
Go Gators. 🐊
I know; it’s an addiction. I’m trying to give up the college game, too. If you had known me at one point, you would have thought that impossible, but I’m down to monitoring scores and news on Yahoo! Sports and catching bits of some games on live streaming on YouTube. But I cannot forgive something that was done by my university 5 years ago. (We have to forgive people, who have immortal souls, but we don’t have to forgive institutions.)
Of course, things are different now, probably mainly because of the availability of news media 24/7 in all parts of the country targeted for all age groups. Distrust of governmental authority, along with the sharp division between various people groups, is very high. It doesn’t help when young (and often politically-naive) A-list celebrities voice contrary views to traditional American government that our children and teens pick up on.
It’s no wonder that people lash out and say or publish objectionable commentary–or just tell people who disagree with them where to go instead of entering into rational discussion with them.
Keep in mind, though, that in the past, we have seen plenty of divisions in our country, and one of these divisions, “states’ rights to hold slaves”, led to one of the worst wars in our history, and a division of thinking in our country that has only recently began to dissipate a little, at least on the surface.
I can’t help but remember the hippies of the 1960s, and their naive (and often Mary Jane-induced!) messages of peace and love that for various reasons (especially draft dodging), offended so many older folks. Now those hippies who are still alive are old and perhaps wiser (?!)–I wonder what they think of all this conflict and division? So much for “All We Need is Love.”
I think we need to figure out why our distrust of governmental authority seems much higher, although I think if we look at American history, we will learn that even in the pioneer days, there were divisions between Americans (There is a story in one of Laura Ingalls Wilder’s “Little House” books that describes a political debate about tariffs, in which both debaters presented and defended a different “side” of the issue without necessarily supporting their position personally).
In a free nation, there will be sharp disagreements between people who have their own ideas and theories about how government should function. Compromise would be good, but sometimes, it’s just not feasible. E.g., My late husband and I worked hard all our lives, tried to be wise in our spending and investments, and as a result of that hard work, I have a more-than-adequate retirement fund–and I really don’t want government taking it away from me and given to those who dissed school and now refuse to work! I give to various charities (especially Catholic charities) that I know are legitimately out on the “front lines” helping the poor and also those who are unable to work due to health or other reasons, but I don’t want to give up my retirement funds to pay for those who refuse to take school seriously while they are young and grow up planning to work for living!
We’ve seen many lies from politicians in recent years, along with exaggerations, insults, and other random comments from leaders from BOTH Democratic and Republican parties. These comments are often incendiary and obviously, have not been “vetted” in advance by wise advisors and associates. Perhaps we need to see our politicians, movie stars, celebrities, coaches, teachers, etc. required to utilize individual “conscience advisors” who stay with them constantly and stop them BEFORE they say or write something incendiary that could lead to violent repercussions! After all, “loose lips sink ships”–and at times, it seems that the U.S.A. is “sinking into anarchy!”
Dr. Feser has written an illuminating article. I do think that one of the issues he didn’t discuss is the attachment of many adults (including senior citizens), young teens and even children to their I-phones and social media (which is often where they view pornography).
This constant involvement with online media instead of the “real world” can “infect” a child, teen, or adult with very warped ideas about real life issues. The schools in my state no longer allow schoolchildren and teens to have phones at school–and I think this will help young people to get out of the “fantasy world” of the internet social media and into the real world of people who are alive and present and have more “life experience” under their belts! I wish that this limitation on phones in schools, including universities and colleges could be implemented across the entire U.S.A.
I am not involved with any social media other than this forum and another friendly forum that has the purpose of making friends online with other Catholics and non-Catholic Christians! I actually talk to real people in real life! And write responses to the articles in this forum! If what I write here is ignorant or elementary, I’ll cite my age!
May please I ask what forum that is Mrs. Sharon?
I’ve wondered if there’s not a way of connecting to other Christians online for fellowship & sharing ideas. But not through Facebook, etc.
Back in the day we used to have pen pals & I enjoyed corresponding with people in other parts of the US & abroad. You can learn a lot that way. One German pen pal visited us with her family twice & my daughter visited with them in Germany after she graduated from high school.
Mrs.Whitlock: I respect your moderation and wisdom.
…think if we look at American history, we will learn that even in the pioneer days, there were divisions between Americans…
I believe it’s well documented the founding fathers fought vehemently about the formation of this experimental country, and of course there were several traitors in the whole process (any historian reading this feel free to correct or expound on)
Personally, I disagree with many things others say, but I’ll fight to my death for my right to disagree. (Isn’t that the old saying?)
(read Pioneer Girl if you haven’t – you’ll get a lot of truth tidbits on what actually happened in Little House (like they had a lazy boarder during the Long Winter who refused to twist any hay or do other survival chores!)
We had a guest like that on our farm years ago. “The Long Summer “.
🙂
Feser starts by taking the presumptive high road of not limiting free speech. That presumptively removes the deleterious sounding onus of limiting free speech. A smart move visually, is it technically?
From a philosopher’s perspective the premise suggests a good grasp of those decisive, presumably definitive limits. Feser begins with a decisive, though variously interpreted principle, the Common Good. As definitive the common good must by an elicitation from natural law [the efficacy of the inherent natural law we all share is that it is a reflexion of the eternal law].
Feser’s 1-4 principles of determining just limitation of speech are diagrammed as the nature of just speech. The difficulty in that approach is whether what is described as good or acceptable speech exhausts the limits of free speech and the good of the whole or common good. We may examine this in context of Pam Bondi’s lawful condemnation of hate speech.
First, we place remarks about Mafia like Brendan Carr as hearsay and not relevant to the contention that speech has limits in what it can affect such as hate speech. For example, what if Bret Baier announced loud and clear: President Trump is a vile dictator and by right must be assassinated. Or perhaps less clear President Trump is a dictator and deserves to be shot. Feser’s opinion on what falls within the parameters of permissible do not clarify exactly where such an announcement fits, whether an unlawful threat or merely a complaint. The reason is that attempting to place a positive principle over a complex legal scenario does not address the limits of free speech. In Aquinas’ principle of moral judgment we must deliberate the conditions of an act.
Does Trump’s remark that “because the negative press coverage he has received is, in his view, excessive, it is ‘no longer free speech’ and ‘illegal'” – actually illegal if we place it in context of at least two attempts of assassination made against him, it is plausible that media calling him Hitler, fascist, a threat to democracy, he should be removed – that this does not shatter the limits of free speech, speech that is a danger to the common good of a nation?
Although free speech is a defining principle of the freedom envisioned by the Fathers of the Nation we also have juridical premises such as defamation of character that do set limits to what may be publicly announced.
“Which forms of expression should the state prohibit, then? To start with, the least controversial examples, it should prohibit libelous and slanderous speech, and speech that directly incites violence against some individual or group” (Feser).
Actually I agree in general with Dr Feser’s essay and this prohibition applies to President Trump as a special case based on media hostility and suggestion that Trump is deserving of removal, even death. And the two attempts on his life give us a reasonable basis for that opinion.
Insofar as comedian Kimmel there isn’t clear evidence he was involved with his limited dismissal although Kimmel’s remarks on the murder of Kirk and Kimmel’s lampooning the reaction of Kirk supporters and their heartbreak is certainly not humor. Nothing other than venomous retort ideologically supportive of those who openly speak of his death.
Quite apart from our current situation, what was the status of free speech in Germany in the 1930’s, China 1950’s, Russia 1950’s etc?
Quite apart from the legitimacy of free speech, is the weaponization of free speech to overthrow legitimate governments and install murderous ideologies as did the Jacobins in France, the Bolsheviks in Russia, the Nazis in Germany, and presently the radical Marxist Left Antifa in America.
When and where has it been declared justice to possess the freedom to provoke violence and incite evil? Freedom is genuinely freedom when it promotes justice.
The UK in 2025…
It’s some since I spent time in Britain and both occasions were quite pleasant, enjoyed meeting with people. Since then I’ve been given account through the media and some comments here that things have changed drastically.
It’s difficult to understand how and why a cultured, very intelligent nation with a storied history can so quickly capitulate to progressive ideology, surrendering all to the disingenuous and foreign interlopers.
There’s a widespread loss of national identity and tradition in Europe and the US that seems linked to an absence of conviction of who and what we are. This phenomenon was long past studied by psychologist Erik Erikson.
“Statesmanship requires doing whatever is possible to repair social divisions, not exacerbating them further in the interests of getting revenge on those who first caused them.”
Given the left’s concerted and multiple attempts to destroy Trump’s livelihood and incarcerate him for the rest of his life, a little bit of revenge might be both understandable and appropriate.
“Statesmanship requires doing whatever is possible to repair social divisions, not exacerbating them further in the interests of getting revenge on those who first caused them.”
Trump tried that approach the first time he was elected. The Radical Leftist Antifa-minded Democrats saw that as weakness and sought to destroy him any which way they could – including an assassination attempt. I’m certain that he resolved to play the way Democrats do. We don’t need weak and effeminate men to preach to the rest of us – we get enough of that from our pulpits day in and day out.
Quarantine is not “untested” or “Draconian” or “unprecedented”, Prof. Feser. How do you think we annihilated viral smallpox?
Which forms of expression should the state prohibit, then? To start with, the least controversial examples, it should prohibit libelous and slanderous speech, and speech that directly incites violence against some individual or group.
First of all, slander and libel are not prohibited; they are actionable as torts, not crimes, and the bar to prove injury is high.
As for prohibiting “inciting violence against some individual or group.”, that sounds good until you see it applied anywhere the left rules-where it be Great Britain, American college campuses or any of the open source projects documented by youtuber Bryan Lunduke (Opensuse, NixOS, Debian…).
Such a prohibition is an invitation to abuse. Some of those software projects have defined “silence is violence” and the failure to publicly endorse the usual suspects with flags as “hate”.
This essay is below the expectations I have for the author.