Question for the Historians
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
April 3, 2012 at 10:00am
Would I be correct in saying that in no other society in human history has freedom of expression been protected by law and custom as comprehensively as it has been in the United States since Brandenburg v. Ohio?
(I'm asking because I'm writing a book review. I wrote that sentence, then wondered if it was true.)
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Re: Question for the Historians
Probably, he said not all that helpfully. I can’t think of another.
The dimension of law is critical, too, as you could have conceivably had places where people did have the ability to speak very freely, but were nevertheless at the risk of legal or physical threat. Like maybe Renaissance Italy. I’m guessing you could probably jabber on in all sorts of directions, but there was nothing stopping a prince from jailing or executing you if you really ticked him off. I don’t think. (It’s not like I’ve spent the last six months reading about 15th–16th-century Europe—oh wait, I have. In my defense, freedom of speech doesn’t come up much in the literature…)
Oct '10
Re: Question for the Historians
I'm not an historian, but that's not going to hold me back.
You say 'society', which is terribly broad, and presumably includes pre-law societies (not that we would know about them).
You then have freedom of expression 'protected by law' - from whom? If you're looking for protection from the state, the the US seems to have the most absolutist constitutional protection. But if the protection is against other private actors - employers, for example - then an argument could be made that (ridiculous and freedom-restricting) equality laws provide more protection.
As for custom, I'm sure there are many, many things that cannot be said in polite society in the US, even if the rules are complex and arbitrary (the s-word vs. the c-word, to take a recent example).
Re: Question for the Historians
I should have been more clear, by "custom" I meant that Americans generally have the instinct to think that freedom of expression is desirable, at least in principle--as opposed to most of the rest of the world, where most people pretty much think that freedom of expression is the express highway to chaos, ethnic cleansing, and the breakdown of social order (and in many cases may well be right).
Mar '11
Re: Question for the Historians
I cannot think of one in which freedom of expression was so comprehensive (in the sense of applying to so many forms of expression), widespread (in the sense of how many forums exist in which these various forms are aired), and in which it perceived to the same degree as a fundamental human freedom, as well as being taken for granted as a fact of life by so many--nevermind codified into law.
I can think of comparatively free periods, but for most of human history both formal law and informal mores restricted speech. Most especially with regard to what could be said about the gods and the government publicly without penalty (either via prior restraint or prosecution after the fact)
Feb '11
Re: Question for the Historians
Well, Tacitus said (and David Hume quoted him): “Rara temporum felicitas, ubi sentire, quae velis ; & quae sentias, dicere licet.”
Rare felicity of an age when you are permitted to think as you wish and say what you think.
Nov '10
Re: Question for the Historians
I am ignorant of ancient societies and those of the Moslems and the Far East, but aside from those, whatever they may have in their rules about the restraints upon speech by both the state and by citizens acting without state authority, I think that a guarantee of freedom of speech by the sovereign itself is confined to the US.
Many, if not all, of our 50 States have such guarantees written into their own constitutions, some of which antedate the US Constitution. And, useful comparisons probably can be found in more recently written fundamental laws in such places as Japan and Germany, which would have been influenced heavily by the Occupation Forces, and the Czech Republic.
They recently completed an exercise in constitution writing in Europe. I don't know what resulted but strongly suspect that it is a monument to Political Correctness and that what our Framers took a few sentences to accomplish they required chapters to cover.
Mar '11
Re: Question for the Historians
I think one might say that the in the past generation the US has set a new standard for protecting individual expression as such, without regard to any considerations of merit. As to expression meriting protection, your question reminded me of a striking remark by Alan Charles Kors, a leading scholar of the Enlightenment: "Never, in the history of all creeds, has there been more intellectual dynamism, vitality, philosophical diversity, mutual criticism, and natural philosophical liberty than in the history of the Catholic Church." Worth pondering given recent controversies.
Re: Question for the Historians
I'm asking because I'm considering the OIC's efforts to internationalize apostasy and blasphemy laws within the UN system in the past two decades through the passage of resolutions condemning "Islamophobia." It is hard to argue that the American position on speech is anything like a universal norm--there is in fact no other country that comes even close.
Feb '11
Re: Question for the Historians
Claire, I think that is exactly correct. I think there were times in some ancient republics and some modern ones when members of select classes or under certain conditions could say things fairly openly, eg the Roman Senate - but that is restricted to a class in a culture heavily obsessed with honor, even at times within certain Chinese agencies, but those were basically spying for the Emperor and not for general circulation, or as a social/political safety-valve: Aristophanes comes to mind as part of a religious festival, soldiers singing ribald songs about Caesar's sexuality in a triumphal march; but they were only permissible under certain contexts. No, I don't think any society has had this freedom. Some 19th and 20th centuries European democracies gave it a try, but they still had additional legal "safe guards", political restrictions, and/or far more powerful laws for liable and slander.
Apr '11
Re: Question for the Historians
I have a history degree but I don't consider myself a historian; historians write history. That being said, I think you are on safe ground as others have implied. If someone comes up with some obscure scenario to challenge your assertion, some history nerd no doubt, you can call on the resources here at Ricochet to reply in an authoritative manner, win-win.
Re: Question for the Historians
No, that’s about right, I think. In the contemporary world, the law-and-custom stream you’re talking about is a specific stream of English liberalism that was fortunately crystalized in our Bill of Rights in 1789. Rather like the right-to-keep-and-bear-arms right and custom, it’s been preserved (and in the case of “speech,” extended) here, while, even in other Anglophone countries, those streams have elsewhere eddied or been narrowed or dammed.
I remember many years ago being surprised at the restrictions on political speech in France and West Germany. But really, they’re in the mainstream. We’re the weirdo.
Feb '12
Re: Question for the Historians
You're probably correct if you limit yourself to blasphemy, pornography, and disrespect for leaders. But that is to put on liberal blinders. Custom is very restrictive in the United States, at least among the elite. You are not supposed to criticize God (though Christians are fair game), affirmative action, recycling, feminism, homosexuality, revealing clothing, and a host of other things. Doing so will be bad for you socially and hurt your job chances.
As for law, we do have very restrictive speech laws. You can't defame, and you can't violate copyright. For most people, that's far more restrictive than any amount of anti-pornography law, since most people don't want to produce porn (tho many do want to consume it). And it's not just that you can't reprint books. You can't download a copyrighted image from the web, or a complete web post, or a poem. (That kind of violation is rarely enforced, but you *are* violating the law.) In America, it's against the law to print Bibles--- if it's the NIV, which is copyrighted. Even singing a song you hear on the radio is illegal.