American Exceptionalism

A front page article in today's New York Times proclaims that that, when it comes to free speech, the U.S. is "exceptional" because we impose a higher bar than other countries, most notably Canada, when it comes to censoring individuals and/or the press. Now, the word "exceptional" by itself can have both positive and negative connotations, and I first thought it was a testament to the editorial staff of the Times that they used such a deliberately ambiguous word. However, such thoughts gradually disappeared from my mind as I read the article, which seems to have a bone to pick with the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence and the state of free speech in America today.

After spending some time discussing the heavier speech regulation in other nations, and tacitly agreeing with some quoted philosophers that such regulation might make sense to preserve tolerance and cohesion in a liberal democracy, the article spends a couple sentences surmising that this American "exceptionalism" probably has something to do with our history and focus on individual liberty.

You could say that.

In truth, this is a vast oversimplification of one of the bedrock principles of a uniquely American mode of governance. While it is undoubtedly true that words can be as dangerous as firearms, it does not follow that they should be equally regulated. This is due to a simple and obvious truth which the Times seems to have missed: speech is our most direct outward expression of thought. To regulate speech is, by direct implication, to attempt to regulate thought and belief. Indeed, most speech regulation in other nations is an attempt to suppress a particular belief and encourage another. And while it may be clear to us that some beliefs and thoughts are clearly wrong, dangerous, and ignorant, in the end that amounts to nothing more than a disagreement, vehement though it may be.

"...that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights..." These words are familiar to most Americans, and yet serious thought is, sadly, rarely given to its meaning and implications. For it has a very specific meaning, drafted by a man trained in the law and schooled in logic and rhetoric. An "unalienable right" is one that cannot be given away, even if one wishes to do so. It is inherent and non-transferable. Now, clearly such an absolute reading would cause serious administrative problems (witness Holmes's famous example of crying Fire in a crowded theater). Nevertheless, the sentiment expressed is one which sets itself firmly in the individual liberty of Americans to talk and believe as they will. Madison followed firmly in Jefferson's footsteps when he drafted the Bill of Rights - indeed, one could say that much of it was a collaborative effort.

Okay, I'll stop. I don't want to (nor do I have the time to) write an entire essay fleshing out these arguments. However, to me it is clear that our modern free speech jurisprudence is grounded not only in history, but also in sound political philosophy. While other countries might choose to promote tolerance over free thought, and superficial consensus over occasional discord, such a value system is distinctly un-American. It creates an atmosphere where certain thoughts are illegal, and certain beliefs are heresies against the state. If one is to preserve a liberal democracy, the only heresy I can think of is tyranny.