Tanisi (Year 9)
Editor’s note: Talented Year 9 student Tanisi submitted this interesting essay to the annual John Locke Institute Global Essay Prize in the Junior category. This essay explores the benefits of free speech from two philosophical perspectives, focusing on the roles of both listener and speaker in individual growth and societal interaction. CPD
Whether one derives the most is dependent on their chosen definition of ‘benefit’. John Stuart Mill’s freedom of speech is defined as a person’s protected right of expression, upheld specifically due to the notion’s instrumentality to them. Therefore, benefit in this interpretation is solely in the interest of individual growth (which will be referred to by the term ‘capacity’). To elaborate, Mill’s theory of human capacity states it to be the development of an individual’s inherent abilities to further one’s potential, ranging from their rational and moral selves, that which can only be improved when actively challenged; thus, the individualistic development of one’s capacity will be the benefit obtained.
In the role of the ‘listener’
To derive the utmost benefit from an action, it is imperative that it contributes to one’s existing knowledge, it has to be something which the individual does not already know. Does that not imply, that we have the most to gain when taking in others’ viewpoints? Raz addresses this, where one acquires the greater advantage from other’s expression over their own as the potential value others’ thoughts hold to us, far outweigh the already determined value that our thoughts already hold (1991); like bricks may stack a tower higher, we can build upon others’ experiences, and vice versa. Hence, challenging our mental faculties for knowledge obtainment.
The ability to listen to others enables intellectual growth, hence, familiar concepts are developed by the exploration of foreign perspective; a thirst for knowledge can only be quenched by a diversity of fact, an exposure to all that is there, rather than just prejudiced thought (Cohen 1993: 229). Without this exposure, one’s confirmation bias picks out only information in favour (or that opposes any counterarguments) of their specific viewpoint, which puts these views at risk of becoming unquestioned dogma. This negatively impacts the individual as it weakens their capacity to carry out tasks which require critical thinking or forethought, thereby, the capacity remains unchallenged.
Furthermore, free speech is not limited to views pertaining to the status quo, neither the inoffensive. In opposition to the argument that others’ free speech may not be productive or beneficial to us, specifically regarding false speech, one could argue the cruciality of being exposed to it. Due to humanity’s fallibility, our perception of truth is flawed, thus resulting in the feasible diffusion of fake information. Nevertheless, within the lies, there must be a truth from which the false view had budded; false speech reminds us to re-examine our own supposed truths.
As previously mentioned, if one can only see their own side of an argument, their rational capacity in viewing the bigger picture remains unchallenged, and their minds may subconsciously default to dogmatism. Moreover, it can positively influence the individual as it allows them better understanding of themselves, as there lies value in acknowledging our own sub-conscious inclinations of discarding information that does not align with our own agendas. In clarification, when we listen to false speech, our rational selves are challenged as our capacities for critical thinking are exercised in order to decipher its credibility, and to crosscheck it with what we already know.
If personal thought has no means of being challenged, then there is no personal growth, and without it, Mill’s conditions of benefit are not fulfilled. As the ‘calmer and more disinterested bystander’ has more to gain due to the ‘collision of opinions’ rather than those that are too invested in their own viewpoints, that they can’t consider anything that may slightly oppose their own beliefs (1859: ch2, p94), the individual is able to form logical, unbiased thought by keeping an open mind, which is necessary in developing their judgement; hence, the individual benefits most in the role of the listener.
The redefining of ‘Free speech’
Conversely, Shiffrin’s theory of free speech places a greater emphasis on the individual’s autonomy rather than the notion’s utility towards them; with this definition holding connotations to not only communicatory means, but also the underlying principle behind the expression. Instead, she defines it as ‘an individual’s protected right of free, independent thought’.
To clarify, freedom of speech stems directly from the freedom of thought, as it is merely the refinement of the latter; in this sense, one is inseparable from the other, and therefore, are not mutually exclusive terms.
Hence, this re-refinement of the term directly opposes the idea that one benefits most from others’ free speech, as critical thinking requires independent thought, meaning that the individual’s capacities cannot be challenged without their own free speech there to interpret it; therefore, rendering the whole argument for its benefit to specifically listener individualism irrelevant.
In the role of the ‘speaker’
Personal autonomy and expression is crucial in self-betterment, as it cultivates from an early stage your acquired identity, promotes free thinking. The ability to articulate this acquired self enables you to understand yourself, which aligns with the defined benefit. One cannot improve themselves without the active need to change, and that cannot reveal itself without personal understanding. Without the individual’s own freedom of expression, they are unable to form an independent perspective on whom they want to become; rather, a puppet dictated by their surroundings, hence hindering their ability for self-improvement.
Freedom of expression is essential as we benefit the most by self-acceptance (Baker 1989), particularly if benefit in this scenario is in regards to individualism, where their self-worth is not confined strictly to the standards placed upon them, and instead revalued by their own perception of themselves.
We like to believe in the clarity of our sense of selves, that we fully understand the people who we are; however, as Lieberman put it ‘our brains are designed to be influenced by others’ (2013 p8). When one laughs, or cries, or shouts, it is a response to an action; how people know which reaction to select depending on the scenario is determined by the actions of the people around them. Just as there are cultural ties to certain gestures, we subconsciously mimic others and pick up associations and mannerisms. An example of this phenomenon is laugh tracks; we pick up on social cues as we laugh along with them, an imitation of an emotion which our minds may, wholeheartedly, believe to be inherent and organic to them (Lieberman 2013).
However, regarding capacities, we can only improve with awareness. If we know where we truly stand, rather than just where we think others may want us to, and have awareness where our beliefs lie, then we can grow as individuals.
Moreover, by separating one’s identity from the collective, the individual is better able to understand the differences between their nature, and that of others; this is essential in developing one’s social capacity, their ability for articulate expression. One cannot fully express themselves unless they identify their differences with others (Ash 2017), thereupon, without the ability to vocalise one’s own thoughts (no matter the nature of the content) we are unable to refine our free thought, unable to refine them, and hence stunting our capacity for potential.
By having the ability to express idiosyncratic opinion, to cultivate opinions that diverge from social norms, the individual is able to gain genuine understanding of the world around them, which, in turn, leads to them honing a better understanding of themself as well.
In terms of improving one’s ‘intellectual’ capacity, truly understanding the world is a given, something of absolute necessity in determining one’s own sense of self; one benefits the most without passive acceptance, where they feel inclined to question and voice.
The roles’ intersection
The necessity of society is the cooperation of the individuals which constitute it; so for one to claim that we benefit more from our own free speech than other peoples’ (or vice versa), is to state in contradiction to the inherent nature of humanity.
As previously stated, we have a theory about who we are as individuals, but we never truly determine this because of the malleability of our social self (Lieberman 2013). Our thought is easily moulded by the people around us, as a result, so is what we say and how we express ourselves. We are unable to determine where one thought starts and one thought ends; or, more aptly put, where our independent thought ends, and where the influence others have on us begins.
So, for us to separate the benefit we obtain from others’ free speech and our own, is impossible. Humans are social beings, dependent on the communication of ideas, to detangle one party from the other, is to negatively impact the individual’s capacities.
To understand the world, something essential in challenging our view and thereupon, our capacities, it is essential to have the elementary form of fact. As touched upon when discussing the benefits of the individual as the ‘listener’, one needs known fact to interpret the onslaught of information. For an individual to act as a listener, not just someone who hears and sees expression without registering it fully, they need perception, they need independent, personal thought to appreciate it fully. This understanding is essential as it allows one to incorporate others’ views to benefit their own growth.
In accordance to Mill’s argument on human capacity, a dialogue of free expression is necessary in an individual’s growth, but this capacity can only be exercised in a community, through mutual interaction, where others may challenge, respond and engage to form a circulation of ideas. As consequence, our capacities as rational and moral beings can only flourish amidst social interaction. To develop one’s capacity, they would need to be challenged, whether emotionally or intellectually. Just as one cannot learn to reason well without confronting opposing views, nor can one refine their moral judgement without seeing its consequences in real life. A recent example which has decreased the development of human capacity, is AI’s role as a search engine. We often substitute real scholarly interaction with AI summaries as a means of simplifying our own thoughts; however, one cannot grow without free interaction, where participants in a conversation are free to express contrarian views. As a result, our capacity for critical thinking becomes weakened, with our personal biases only fed by one-sided ‘conversation’.
For speech to be truly free, we must all play a part to foster a comfortable environment to allow for a pluralistic society. Our freedom of speech retains its utmost value not in isolated expression, but rather, in conversation. In regard to human capacity, while we stand to gain the most when taking in other views and opinions, the benefit derived can only be utilised when our own independent thought is applied. With the most benefit reaped predominantly in scenarios such as where an individual’s robust civility (respectful disagreement), as Ash puts it, is allowed to prosper; thus, enabling people to disagree productively, which is where their capacities may be strained the most.
In conclusion, both parties’ roles, the listener and the speaker, are essential and mutually beneficial to one another.
Ergo, the individual is only able to benefit when both forms: their own, as well as others’ rights to free speech, come into play.
The GSAL Journal 