<<
>>

Freedom of Expression and Distrust of Government

The final theory of freedom of expression that I shall take up can be dealt with in short order. That theory derives the right of freedom of expression from the premise that government cannot be trusted to regulate expression, either because it is unduly error-prone in assessing expression’s harms and benefits, or because it has motives for regulating - notably, self-protection - that render it untrustworthy in doing so.[283]

The premise that government is unduly error-prone in regulating expression appears to be an empirical rather than a conceptual one.

One might imagine then that governments vary, perhaps considerably, with respect to their capacities to regulate expression well. If so, then the premise seems inadequate to support a general human right of freedom of expression.

On the other hand, to the extent that the premise of governmental incom­petence is based on a more universal governmental interest in remaining in power and thus on government’s fear of criticism and dissent, the only right of freedom of expression that the premise generates is the very narrow one of a right to criticize the government. Of course, criticism of the government can be given a capacious definition; but the more expression that is deemed to be criticism of the government, the less plausible the claim of governmental untrustworthiness.

Finally, with respect to the claim that government is fallible in assessing the truth and value of messages, such a claim, if true, applies to governmental regulation generally. Every regulation, if it is to be beneficial rather than per­nicious, must bring about benefits that exceed its costs (however benefits and costs are gauged). To know whether a regulation is beneficial, therefore, re­quires government to assess causal and other factual propositions and to weigh values at stake. Regulations of conduct without respect to messages that conduct conveys - in other words, all Track Two regulations, which, as argued, encom­pass the entire corpus juris beyond Tracks One and Three - are no different in this respect from the message regulations of Tracks One and Three. The benefits and harms of ideas are no harder for government to evaluate than the benefits and harms of laws generally.

V.

<< | >>
Source: Alexander Larry. Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? Cambridge University Press,2005. — 217 p.. 2005

More on the topic Freedom of Expression and Distrust of Government:

  1. In the previous chapters we have taken a look at the variety of circumstances in which claims of freedom of expression might be invoked and at the variety of interests that government might be pursuing through the allegedly infringing law or governmental action.
  2. The right to freedom of expression appears problematic through and through. Its potential scope is defined by principle (5), which focuses on whether govern­ment’s reasons for regulation include a concern with what messages audiences receive.
  3. In the previous chapters we have searched in vain for an argument that would support a human right of freedom of expression.
  4. Freedom OfExpressive Association
  5. Conclusion: Does All, None, or Only Part of Track Three Implicate Freedom of Expression?
  6. Freedom of Expression as Concomitant to Democratic Decisionmaking
  7. Weber on Objectivity and Value Freedom
  8. Olinaltecan Parental Protection and Distrust
  9. Deontological Theories
  10. CASE 1: Freedom, Citizenship, and Household