Resolved: When in conflict, an individual's freedom of speech ought be valued over community moral.

In many ways, this debate is about the fundamental disagreement between two distinct political philosophies: classic liberalism and communitarianism. Liberalism, as it is formulated by John Stuart Mill, argues that free rational choice is the ultimate good. Communitarianism, on the other hand, argues that individuals are defined by various communal attachments (e.g., ties to the family or to community traditions) so close to us that they can only be set aside at great cost, if at all.Aristotle said, "man is by nature a social animal." We involuntarily pick up social attachments as children, in which rational choice plays no role whatsoever. In the words of Michael Sandel, we are "members of this family or community or nation or people, as bearers of this history, as sons or daughters of that revolution, as citizens of this republic," regardless of our choices. People do not choose their parents, first language, or the neighborhood in which they grew up. Individuals are socially constructed, determined by cultural values that are not chosen rationally.Unlike liberalism, which subordinates local cultural values to the universal value of free rational choice, the communitarian prefers the value of particularity. Charles Taylor calls this a "politics of difference," which makes the recognition of the particularity and uniqueness of different groups more fundamental than rational choice. In practical terms, this means making special adjustments to the special requirements of distinctive groups, for if we refuse such adjustments in the name of some baseline measure of rational potential, we deny distinct groups their recognition as distinct and unique. This view recognizes that values are generated by community morals and not by the abstract rule of pure liberty. I will argue that Pro's principle of "pure liberty" is incoherent and empty, and that it derives its value and meaning from a presupposed context of community morals. Community morals are valued over the freedom of speech because free speech does not exist except within the context of an already pre-existing set of community morals.Harm Principle"All that makes existence valuable to anyone depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must be imposed by law in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law."John Stuart MillPro rests his entire case on Mill's defense of liberty. That said, notice that Mill argues against Pro's "value premise" of "pure liberty." Mill argues that some restrictions on liberty must exist, and that these restrictions can be determined by the harm principle. According to Mill's logic, as long as some speech causes harm, every society must have some limitations on speech.If we accept that speech cannot be defended absolutely, then we must ask ourselves the following question: how are we to determine the appropriate limits of free expression? The only consistent answer to this question is, by the values of our community.Once it becomes clear that some limitations on speech are necessary, Pro's position quickly unravels and collapses on itself. For example, Pro argues that "libel" is subject to restrictions, but contradicts himself with the statement that "selective control, no matter how trivial, will reduce all freedoms." So which is it? Do we make room for selective control or do we allow libel? Pro's position offers no possibility of answering these questions.Instead, because Pro's claims lack epistemological stability, Pro falls into a double bind. The problem with stipulating tolerance or pure liberty as a "value premise" or first principle, as Pro does, is that you cannot possibly be faithful to it. Sooner or later, a culture whose core values you are tolerating will reveal itself to be intolerant at that same core. At some point, confronted with the demand to surrender its viewpoint to tolerance, an intolerant culture will fight back with everything from hate speech to violence. The response to such hate speech or violence is placing restrictions on liberty. The central question of this debate, then, is how to determine these retrictions. I answer community morals. Free speechSpeech does not exist outside of a community in which it is judged. The idea of free speech or a free speech principle that exists independently of a community's morals does not exist. Think about it: the moment you ask what free speech is for, you admit the possibility of forms of speech that subvert the supposed good effects of free speech. Hence, as soon as you locate and move against speech that compromises the good effects of free speech, you are engaged in an act of censorship implicit in the concept of free speech. Because censorship is implicit in the free speech, the appropriate censorship is determined by the community morals used to judge any speech utterance.Or suppose free speech is defined not in relation to its consequences but in terms of a moral imperative. It will necessarily come at the expense of some other possible moral imperative. Hence, by identifying a free speech principle in relation to a moral imperative, you again undermine the free speech principle by censoring other moral imperatives. The point is, any attempt to justify rather than merely identify a free speech principle will require acceptance of principles that will compromise the said free speech principle. The limitations imposed on speech are determined by the community in which any speech utterance occurs. But limitations will always exist. Pro's ideal of "pure liberty" and an "unfettered ability to speak" is a fantasy that is unsupported epistemologically or ontologically. Hate speechAn utterance is hate speech so long as some group finds it objectionable, and since this is a requiment almost any utterance will meet, hate speech is not a limitable category and can be anything, even the Declaration of Independence or the Golden Rule. It follows, then, that whether a form of speech is protected or not will depend on the prior investments of those who produce and receive it. Hate speech, so called, is always at once someone's rationality and someone else's abomination.To put this another way, if hate speech is seen as evidence of moral or cognitive confusion, then we simply use rational thought and good reasoning to clear up the confusion. But if hate speech is simply wrong, if it is the expression of a despised morality, the morality of your enemy, you will not deny it simply through rational thought. Because it would be interpreted as morally indefensible, within the community, the community will feel morally obligated to flat out refuse its existence in public discourse.Autonomy Whereas Pro's argument focuses solely on the autonomy of the individual, my argument also takes the motive, context, and consequences of speech into account. That said, arguments for restricting speech according to community moral standards can be made that focus solely on the autonomy of the individual. The freedom to develop as an individual depends on mutual understandings between individuals and their community. Speech that violates this mutual understanding (aggressive or hateful speech) denies the right of individuals and groups to participate freely and equally in public discourse. Restricting aggressive speech does not violate the liberty and equality of individuals, but rather, secures the liberty and equality of individuals in the public sphere. In other words, restricting speech when it conflicts with community morals is a way of securing the equal status of citizenship for all members of society by eliminating messages from the public domain that would detract from that status. Freedom of speech is an important right, but more fundamental is the status of an individual as a member of the community deserving equal concern, respect, and rights.