Critiquing Free Speech

In the past couple of weeks, I have been busy reading and critiquing the book "Critiquing Free Speech: First Amendment Theory and the Challenge of Interdisciplinary," by Matthew D. Bunker. The book was an interesting read, and brought up numerous theories and interpretations throughout the chapters within. I realize that there is too much information for me to comment on every theory or theorist in the book, so I have decided to focus on the concept of the individual vs. the community in relation to the many theories in the book. I noticed that most of the book tends to relate back to this concept.

The first chapter is a nice overview of many of the standard first amendment theories, such as the marketplace of ideas, or the individual autonomy theory. Even within these theories we begin to see a divide on the individual v. the community. The marketplace of ideas theory focuses on the community, allowing ideas and opinions to flow freely throughout society, allowing all viewpoints to be heard. On the other hand, the individual autonomy theory places primary focus on the individual. This theory claims the freedom of speech and expression are imperative to individual liberty, regardless of the products produced. An individual cannot truly be free or independent or even truly human without the liberty of free speech. As we will see, this beginning chapter has set the stage for more eclectic or obscure theories and their battles between the individual v. the community.

Now I will mostly skip around the book, discussing some of the more interesting theories I discovered and how they relate to the concept of the individual v. the community. The first unique concept I discovered was a theory focusing on society and the community: Judge Richard A. Posner's First Amendment Formula. In short, Judge Posner uses economics and mathematics in order to create and actual mathematic formula for regulating speech. His formula states that government can only regulate speech if "V + E < l =" social" e =" the">
find this totally ridiculous. How can one formulate the social value of speech? I think Posner's focus on society is his formula's downfall, as he assumes that all of these values mean the same thing to everyone, as if there was one commonly held value by society of certain kinds of speech. However, every individual has their own interpretation of what the social cost (L) or the value (V) of speech may be. This is why I feel this theory is somewhat useless to be perfectly honest.

However, Posner's theory actually uses another first amendment theory in its construction: reductionism. Reductionism is about reducing law to the domain of other disciplines. Posner reduced law to the disciplines of mathematics and economics. Some think law is just politics in disguise. More and more laws are being reduced down to lay person's terms. Opponents of reductionism feel that law deserves its own "autonomous domain of knowledge." It was hard at first for me to understand and choose a side on this theory, so I equated it to something I was more familiar with. As a future music educator, it's important for me to acknowledge unique musical content in my classroom. Only in music class can a student learn about "crescendos" and what clefs there are. However, it's also necessary for me to connect things learned in my music classroom to other subjects, so that students see how all kinds knowledge work together to achieve proper learning. In law, I think it's necessary that law retains some of its own vocabulary and content. However, it is impossible NOT to reduce law in some ways, as law is dependent upon many other things. As the book quotes, "law is just a reflection of truth," so whatever is necessary to achieve this truth, that too must be reflected in law. However, in that case "truth" is dependent upon the individual, so this reductionist claim puts priority on the individual and their interpretations.

Finally, I want to discuss the most interesting theorist I read about in this book, Stanley Fish. Fish has very unique views on first amendment theory. Above all, Fish is a staunch believer of the community over the individual. He believes individuals belong to "interpretive communities." This means that there is no one community that encompasses all of mankind. Instead, people associate themselves with groups of people who share common beliefs and values. Fish believes everyone makes decisions based on their interpretive communities. This also means judges. Fish believes that judges and juries don't use judicial theory (there's no such thing according to him) but instead base all of their decisions based on predispositions based on their interpretive community. This is why, he argues, judges come up with different rationales with different decisions. Even the theories and texts that judges read and quote in their decisions are just text being interpreted in a specific way by the individual. Fish also believes there is no such things as absolute free speech, for the community will always draw a line. Such as with obscenity or fighting words. There is also no free speech as all speech has a political agenda according to Fish.

Fish's thoughts are radical. Fish believes that people have no unique thoughts, but base all decisions based on their interpretive communities. Part of me has to agree with Fish. Hardly ever do I hear someone with a truly unique perspective. Often. we use quotes, research, or the theories of someone else in order to establish our thoughts and beliefs. I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on Earth. But couldn't that be based on my family's beliefs, knowledge of United States history, or patriotism learned from my interpretive community? Even searching my own thoughts, I can't think of a belief or morale that hasn't been instilled by, or aligns itself with, someone else in my surrounding community. Even fads are the result of influence on an individual by their interpretive communities. I was told I needed to buy a tamogotchi in 2nd grade if I was to be cool, I grew up a Cubs fan because that's what my family told me was best, and doctors tell us to eat or veggies or we'll be sorry one day. It's scary, but sometimes I feel that everything we do or say in life isn't unique. I realize that there is room for uniqueness in our lives, but as a norm I feel we are led through life. Benjamin Franklin proved lightening was electricity and Stephen Hawking discovered Hawking Radiation in a black hole. Both are individual accomplishments. But aren't both of their discoveries based on the work done in their communities before them? It's interesting to consider...

Overall, I thought this was an interesting book. It gave overviews and critiques of numerous theories. The first chapter overview was nice, and the other chapters introduced me to some unique thoughts and viewpoints that I would have never considered otherwise. It was a bit wordy however, and sometimes I found myself lost or confused while reading all this law talk. Maybe a bit more reduction would have helped me.