{"id":74891,"date":"2018-12-25T09:23:20","date_gmt":"2018-12-25T09:23:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/essays.homeworkacetutors.com\/does-the-concept-of-fake-news-undermine-freedom-of-speech\/"},"modified":"2018-12-25T09:23:20","modified_gmt":"2018-12-25T09:23:20","slug":"does-the-concept-of-fake-news-undermine-freedom-of-speech","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/does-the-concept-of-fake-news-undermine-freedom-of-speech\/","title":{"rendered":"Does the Concept of Fake News Undermine Freedom of Speech?"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"content position-relative mb-4\">\n<h4>A powerful politician falsely asserts that his critics among the media are purveyors of \u2018fake news\u2019. Could such assertions undermine freedom of speech?\u2019<\/h4>\n<p>In order to assess whether the assertions like that of the politician undermine freedom of speech, one first needs to assess what the point or justification of a freedom of speech principle is. Accordingly, I shall approach this essay in the following manner. First, I shall make two assumptions about the reach and impact of the politician\u2019s assertion. Secondly, I shall examine two consequentialist arguments that seek to justify free speech and assess whether, according to these, such assertions can undermine free speech. Having pointed out that both of these arguments mean that a free speech principle only covers certain types of speech, it will then be considered whether one can ever say that an argument seeking to justify a freedom of speech principle is the \u2018best\u2019 or \u2018right\u2019 one. It will ultimately be concluded that one\u2019s argument for a freedom of speech principle depends on one\u2019s politics and values. Therefore, whether assertions like the politician\u2019s undermine freedom of speech depends on how one argues to justify a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ukessays.com\/essays\/media\/mass-media-the-freedom-of-speech-media-essay.php\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">freedom of speech<\/a> principle, which in turn depends on one\u2019s politics and values. <\/p>\n<h2>The assertion<\/h2>\n<p>In the above question a \u2018powerful politician falsely asserts that his critics among the media are purveyors of \u2018fake news\u2019. For the purpose of this essay, I will make two assumptions in regard to this. Firstly, that the politician\u2019s assertion that his or her media critics are spreading \u2018<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ukessays.com\/essays\/media\/fake-news-regulation.php\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">fake news<\/a>\u2019 is a public one, and thereby conveyed to a significant number of the voting population.\u00a0 Secondly, that some of those who hear his assertion believe it to be true or at least are caused to have some doubt about the reliability and truthfulness of the media critics in question. \u00a0In addition to these assumptions, it should also be noted at the outset that the politician\u2019s assertions are described as false, meaning his critics in the media are not in fact purveying fake news.<\/p>\n<h2>Freedom of Speech<\/h2>\n<p>For the purpose of this essay, I shall use<br \/>\nBarendt\u2019s definition of freedom of speech principle as <strong>\u2018<\/strong>a principle<br \/>\nunder which speech is entitled to special protection from regulation or<br \/>\nsuppression\u2019<a href=\"#_ftn1\">[1]<\/a>. There<br \/>\nare many issues and questions that arise from this. What exactly constitutes<br \/>\nspeech? Does suppression include acts such as speakers being banned from university<br \/>\ncampuses? However, here I am primarily concerned with the justification or an<br \/>\nargument for a freedom of speech principle. \u00a0In other words, why should speech be given<br \/>\nspecial protection? This is because, as mentioned above, to ascertain whether<br \/>\nsomething undermines freedom of speech, one must ascertain what the point or<br \/>\npurpose of the freedom of speech principle is in the first place. For example,<br \/>\nthe Law faculty implements a rule banning students wearing trainers inside of<br \/>\nit. The justification of this is to make their students look smarter. The<br \/>\nstudents begin wearing flip-flops instead, and the ban in thereby undermined as<br \/>\nthe point of it has been undermined and thwarted. Below I shall examine two<br \/>\njustifications for a freedom of speech. This is by no means an exhaustive list,<br \/>\nbut seeks to comprehensively examine two principle theories in the space<br \/>\navailable. <\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>The argument from self-government and democracy <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This justification for a free speech<br \/>\nprinciple is based on Meiklejohn\u2019s work<a href=\"#_ftn2\">[2]<\/a>.<br \/>\nHis argument is as follows. \u00a0He says that<br \/>\na self-governing society is one in which the rulers and ruled are the same<br \/>\npeople. In this society, men and women are politically free because they are<br \/>\n\u2018governed-by themselves\u2019<a href=\"#_ftn3\">[3]<\/a>. He<br \/>\ngoes on to argue that freedom of speech is necessary in a self-governing<br \/>\nsociety. Here, while speech can be abridged, freedom of speech cannot<a href=\"#_ftn4\">[4]<\/a>.<br \/>\nMeiklejohn gives the example of a town hall meeting as self-government in in<br \/>\nsimplest form. All are welcome to come, all are political equals and all have a<br \/>\nright and duty to their own thoughts and to express these thoughts because freedom<br \/>\nof speech must not be abridged<a href=\"#_ftn5\">[5]<\/a>.<br \/>\nHowever, to open and continue the meeting by way of using a chairman to quiet<br \/>\nthe crowd and to choose those to speak, speech must be abridged. This is<br \/>\nbecause, according to Meiklejohn, what is essential for the purpose of freedom<br \/>\nof speech is \u2018not that everyone shall speak, but that everything worth saying<br \/>\nshall be said\u2019<a href=\"#_ftn6\">[6]<\/a>. All<br \/>\nsides of an argument must be heard, because for a society to be self-governing,<br \/>\nthe men and women in that society must judge ideas and proposals for<br \/>\nthemselves. Others must not do it for them. Therefore, for Meiklejohn, the<br \/>\njustification or point of a freedom of speech is principle is that it is necessary<br \/>\nin order to have, support and promote a self-governing, democratic society. <\/p>\n<p>However, there are several things to note<br \/>\nabout this argument. \u00a0Firstly, it is<br \/>\nincredibly narrow in scope as the argument only applies for a freedom of speech<br \/>\nprinciple in \u2018self-governing society\u2019. Schauer points out that this theory is<br \/>\n\u2018contingent upon one particular theory of government\u2019<a href=\"#_ftn7\">[7]<\/a>.<br \/>\nThis is a valid point. Meiklejohn\u2019s justification of freedom of speech, even if<br \/>\nsound, is only applicable to democratic political institutions. Yet, a freedom<br \/>\nof speech principle can exist and indeed, may be useful, in societies which are<br \/>\nnot self-governing. Even a society governed by a tyrant may have a reason for<br \/>\nfreedom of speech. For example, a tyrant may want to build a new railway so wants<br \/>\na public consultation or meeting on the best way to do so. This would be his<br \/>\nversion of Meiklejohn town hall. He or she may do this in order to garner and<br \/>\nmaintain public support for said railway, but also to ascertain the best method<br \/>\nof building the railway. <\/p>\n<p>Secondly, this argument would only mean even<br \/>\nwithin democratic societies only a small range of speech would be protected.<br \/>\nThis is because this argument for a freedom of speech principle means that, as<br \/>\nBarendt points out, the principle would only cover political expression<a href=\"#_ftn8\">[8]<\/a>. Schauer<br \/>\nwrites that under Meiklejohn\u2019s theory freedom of speech would need to be<br \/>\nprotected for two main reasons<a href=\"#_ftn9\">[9]<\/a>.<br \/>\nFirstly, so the electorate can be provided with the information need to<br \/>\nexercise its power and make intelligent decisions. Secondly, so they can<br \/>\ncriticize government officials and hold them to account.\u00a0 Yet, in many democratic societies protection<br \/>\nis afforded to non-political speech. For example, hate speech, pornography and<br \/>\nart. Neither of these fall within the two reasons described previously. The<br \/>\nelectorate would not need to hear or use malicious racial abuse in order to<br \/>\nmake decisions or criticize politicians. \u00a0Nor, as Barendt points out<a href=\"#_ftn10\">[10]<\/a>,<br \/>\nwould speech that advocated for a change in the governance of society be<br \/>\nprotected, for example, a movement from a democracy to a socialist republic. Therefore,<br \/>\nthis justification for a freedom of speech principle is narrow in what speech<br \/>\nit covers and does not provide any reason for the principle applying to<br \/>\npornography, art and political speech advocating alternatives to democracies at<br \/>\nit often does in liberal democracies. <\/p>\n<p>A third point can be made about this<br \/>\njustification. If a democratic self-governing society is the basis for a free<br \/>\nspeech principle, then democratic agents of that society surely should be able<br \/>\nto regulate free speech? Indeed, as Barendt points out, a government may think<br \/>\nthe the values of self-governing society can best be preserved by suppressing<br \/>\nfree speech.<a href=\"#_ftn11\">[11]<\/a> Schauer<br \/>\nargues that \u2018the very notion of popular sovereignty supporting the argument<br \/>\nfrom democracy argues against any limitation on that sovereignty, and thereby<br \/>\nargues against recognition of an independent principle of freedom of speech\u2019<a href=\"#_ftn12\">[12]<\/a>.<br \/>\nThis is an important point. For a democratic society to be truly<br \/>\nself-governing, there cannot be limits on their ability to self-govern.<br \/>\nTherefore, to be truly self-governing they cannot be prohibited from legislating<br \/>\nto regulate or prohibit some speech. <\/p>\n<p>Taking this to be the<br \/>\njustification of a free speech principle, it must now be considered whether a<br \/>\ncry of \u2018fake news\u2019 in the context above undermines this version of the free<br \/>\nspeech principle. A helpful way to do so is by using Meiklejohn\u2019s town hall<br \/>\nanalogy. A woman is chosen to speak in the town hall making a truthful<br \/>\ncriticism of a town member who is a prominent politician. After she has<br \/>\nconcluded, a cry of \u2018fake news\u2019 from this powerful politician, leads many in<br \/>\nthe room to believe her speech to be false, essentially making anything she<br \/>\nsays redundant. Her cry may be \u2018heard\u2019 by the other town members, but it is<br \/>\nsoon disregarded. They have not heard any substantive rebuttals from the<br \/>\nprominent businessman, but have instead rejected the woman\u2019s ideas. Does this<br \/>\nundermine a freedom of speech principle that is justified by the above<br \/>\nargument? Not necessarily. This is because the criticisms that he calls \u2018fake<br \/>\nnews\u2019 may not be anything to do with politics. They may be claims about his<br \/>\nprivate life and habits that he is attempting to silence. For his call of \u2018fake<br \/>\nnews\u2019 to undermine this conception of freedom of speech, the politician would<br \/>\nneed to be calling political speech \u2018fake news\u2019. Moreover, he would need to do<br \/>\nso in a self-governing, democratic society, rather than another form of<br \/>\nsociety. Therefore, for the politician\u2019s assertion of \u2018fake news\u2019 would only<br \/>\nundermine freedom of speech if they were said in a democratic self-governing<br \/>\nsociety and were directed towards political speech.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>The argument from truth and knowledge. <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This argument is based on Mill\u2019s work in his<br \/>\nbook, <em>On Liberty<a href=\"#_ftn13\"><strong>[13]<\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><br \/>\nMill\u2019s view is that the justification of a free speech principle is to secure<br \/>\nand promote knowledge. He sets out the argument as follows for why opinions, be<br \/>\nthey true of false, should not be suppressed in the following way. Firstly, in<br \/>\nregard to a right or true opinion, if this is suppressed the human race is<br \/>\ndenied the opportunity to correct their own erroneous views. There is always a<br \/>\nchance that opinion which an authority tries to suppress may be true and to<br \/>\nrefuse to ever hear the opinion \u2018assumes our own infallibility\u2019<a href=\"#_ftn14\">[14]<\/a>. \u00a0Secondly, if the wrong opinion is silenced,<br \/>\nthe human race is denied the opportunity to gain a clearer view of the truth,<br \/>\nwhich would be produced when they it collided with the erroneous opinion. This,<br \/>\nMill says, is because even if the the silenced opinion is wrong it may contain<br \/>\na portion of the truth. The prevailing opinion rarely contains the whole truth,<br \/>\nand we can only find the remainder of the truth by way of the clash of<br \/>\ndifferent opinions. This is why we have opposition parties to the party in<br \/>\npower in politics. Thirdly, even if the prevailing, received opinion is the<br \/>\nwhole truth, without opposition it will be held as a prejudice. People will<br \/>\nhave no understanding of its rational grounds.\u00a0<br \/>\nFourthly, people will lose any real belief or heartfelt conviction in<br \/>\nthese true received opinions if there is no opposition. The opinion becomes a<br \/>\n\u2018dead dogma\u2019<a href=\"#_ftn15\">[15]<\/a>. Therefore,<br \/>\nfor Mill, the justification for a freedom of speech principle is that it<br \/>\npromotes and secures knowledge. The suppression of both right and wrong<br \/>\nopportunity denies humans the opportunity to promote and secure knowledge and<br \/>\ntruth. <\/p>\n<p>Again, there are several points to be made<br \/>\nabout this argument as a justification of freedom of speech. Firstly, as with<br \/>\nthe above argument, this one too only has a limited breadth. Barendt points out<br \/>\nthat this argument would likely not cover speech that does not \u2018assert any<br \/>\ncoherent proposition or make a claim which could ever be objectively tested\u2019<a href=\"#_ftn16\">[16]<\/a>.<br \/>\nFor example, a statement of personal abuse such as \u2018this person is the ugliest<br \/>\nman who has ever existed\u2019. \u00a0This is not<br \/>\nnecessarily a weakness, but does mean the breadth of the principle is narrowed<br \/>\nin a similar way to how a free speech principle based on the argument from<br \/>\ndemocracy only applies to political speech. It also, as Barendt says, fails to<br \/>\nexplain protection that is given to personal abuse and pornography in many<br \/>\nsocieties<a href=\"#_ftn17\">[17]<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, there are weaknesses in the<br \/>\nargument itself. Firstly, Barendt argues that Mill\u2019s argument can be criticised<br \/>\nbecause of its assumption that publicising possible true opinions is \u2018the<br \/>\nhighest public good\u2019<a href=\"#_ftn18\">[18]<\/a>.<br \/>\nBarendt makes a convincing case for his criticism. Many societies decide other<br \/>\nvalues are more important and protect them accordingly. For example, banning<br \/>\nhomophobic or racial hate speech. This is because the societies in question are<br \/>\nprioritising equality and sensitivities above absolute freedom of speech. Barendt<br \/>\nsays that a government is entitled to prioritise \u2018public order considerations\u2019<br \/>\nover the development of knowledge, in cases where it is worried that<br \/>\ninflammatory speech may cause disorder<a href=\"#_ftn19\">[19]<\/a>.<br \/>\nIndeed, Schauer points out that some opinions are suppressed for reasons<br \/>\nunrelated to their truth or falsity<a href=\"#_ftn20\">[20]<\/a>.<br \/>\nFor example, of an experiment which results shows that men are marginally<br \/>\nbetter than women at a specific game. The results are suppressed as it is<br \/>\nfeared that sexists will place too much prominence on their results. Of course,<br \/>\nI accept there will be times when publishing true opinions is deemed to be the<br \/>\nhighest public good. Yet, Mill is wrong to assume that this will always be the<br \/>\ncase. \u00a0<\/p>\n<p>In addition to this. Barendt points out that<br \/>\nMill makes an assumption that that freedom of speech necessarily leads to the<br \/>\ndiscovery of truth and the bettering of knowledge<a href=\"#_ftn21\">[21]<\/a>.<br \/>\nWhile, Barendt says, this may be true in learning environments like<br \/>\nuniversities, it is hard to say the same about the whole of society. This is a<br \/>\nfair criticism. Humans, as Mill himself is keen to point out, are not<br \/>\ninfallible. There is nothing to suggest that given both sides of an argument, a<br \/>\nhuman would always reach the \u2018true\u2019 or \u2018right\u2019 conclusion. Indeed, history<br \/>\nshows this not to be the case. Barendt gives the example of the Nazis coming to<br \/>\npower in Germany, despite there being \u2018relatively free political discourse\u2019<br \/>\nprior to their election<a href=\"#_ftn22\">[22]<\/a>.<br \/>\nTherefore, it is not clear that just because all opinions are heard that the<br \/>\ntruth will necessarily be discovered.<\/p>\n<p>Taking this to be the justification of a free<br \/>\nspeech principle, it must now be considered whether a cry of \u2018fake news\u2019 in the<br \/>\ncontext above undermines this version of the free speech principle. The<br \/>\nquestion states that the politician \u2018falsely asserts\u2019 that his critics are<br \/>\npurveying \u2018fake news\u2019 (i.e. their criticisms are true) and an assumption of<br \/>\nthis essay is that a significant number of people believe this cry of \u2018fake<br \/>\nnews\u2019 to be true.\u00a0 It can therefore be<br \/>\nargued that the powerful politician is effectively \u2018suppressing\u2019 a right<br \/>\nopinion, or the truth. The citizens over which he provides are not getting the<br \/>\nthe chance to correct their erroneous views. Free speech is undermined.<br \/>\nHowever, this would only be the case if the criticisms related to a claim that<br \/>\ncould be objectively tested. As the question states that the politician<br \/>\n\u2018falsely\u2019 states that his critics are spreading \u2018fake news\u2019 it is likely in<br \/>\nthis case that they are making claims that can be objectively tested. For<br \/>\nexample, the size of a crowd at a politician\u2019s speech. <\/p>\n<h3>Which argument for a free speech principle, if any, is the \u2018right\u2019 one? <\/h3>\n<p>Taking into account the above, it seems that<br \/>\nthere are two determining factors in working out whether the politician\u2019s<br \/>\nassertions undermine freedom of speech. Firstly, what argument one uses to<br \/>\njustify a freedom of speech principle and secondly, what the criticisms that<br \/>\nthat the politician calls \u2018fake news\u2019 relate to. If one uses the argument from<br \/>\ndemocracy and self-governance, if the criticisms relate to political expression<br \/>\nthen the cries of \u2018fake news\u2019 will undermine freedom of speech. If one uses the<br \/>\nargument from truth and knowledge, if the criticisms could be objectively<br \/>\ntested then the cries of \u2018fake news\u2019 would undermine freedom of speech. For the<br \/>\nabove reasoning, it seems likely that his critics are making such criticisms. To<br \/>\nanswer the essay question more concretely, one would ideally be able to<br \/>\nidentify one of the many arguments for a free speech principle as the \u2018best\u2019 or<br \/>\n\u2018right\u2019 one. However, as shown above, both arguments that I have highlighted<br \/>\nhave their weaknesses. The argument from democracy and self-government does not<br \/>\naddress the problem that for a society to be truly self-governing, there cannot<br \/>\nbe any limits on their sovereignty, such as a free speech principle preventing<br \/>\nthem from regulating speech. The argument from truth wrongly assumes that truth<br \/>\nwill always be the highest value public good and that the availability of all<br \/>\nthe opinions will cause the truth to be discovered.\u00a0 From the above, it would be difficult to<br \/>\nconclude that there is a single justification for a freedom of speech<br \/>\nprinciple, from which we could decide whether or not the politician\u2019s<br \/>\nassertions undermined free speech. Other theories justify a freedom of speech<br \/>\nprinciple on the basis of securing and promoting human dignity and equality<a href=\"#_ftn23\">[23]<\/a>,<br \/>\nor autonomy<a href=\"#_ftn24\">[24]<\/a>. These,<br \/>\nhowever, are not free from criticism either.<a href=\"#_ftn25\">[25]<\/a><br \/>\nIt is therefore difficult for one to say which argument for a free speech<br \/>\nprinciple is the \u2018best\u2019 or \u2018right\u2019 one, and in turn difficult to say whether or<br \/>\nnot the politician\u2019s assertions would undermine freedom of speech. <\/p>\n<p>An explanation for this difficulty can be<br \/>\nfound in the work of Stanley Fish who famously declares that there is \u2018no such<br \/>\nthing as free speech\u2019<a href=\"#_ftn26\">[26]<\/a>.<br \/>\nHis argument is that freedom of speech is \u2018not an independent value, but a<br \/>\npolitical prize\u2019<a href=\"#_ftn27\">[27]<\/a>. There<br \/>\nis no \u2018natural content\u2019 to freedom of speech<a href=\"#_ftn28\">[28]<\/a>.<br \/>\nInstead, it is given a content that serves the political purpose of the person<br \/>\ninvoking it. Freedom of speech, for Fish, is not a general principle but one<br \/>\nunderstood by the exclusions that give it its meaning. For example, saying all<br \/>\nspeech is tolerated apart from that which which promotes Nazism. It is the<br \/>\nexclusion of speech promoting Nazism that gives freedom of speech its meaning<br \/>\nhere. It is what remains when one has decided what types of speech are not<br \/>\nallowed. The value of a freedom of speech principle is thereby produced by its<br \/>\nexceptions. Fish\u2019s argument can be further demonstrated by using the argument<br \/>\nset out above that the justification of a free speech principle is to promote<br \/>\ntruth. Fish argues that by specifying a good here (truth), one can then argue<br \/>\nthat a particular form of speech may undermine the realisation of this good<a href=\"#_ftn29\">[29]<\/a>.<br \/>\nFor example, speech encouraging the establishment of a tyranny, or speech<br \/>\ndeliberately intended to prevent one reaching the truth \u2013 these are the<br \/>\nexceptions. These exceptions and the line drawn between what speech is<br \/>\nacceptable and what should be regulated are in turn influenced by one\u2019s<br \/>\npolitics. \u00a0A free speech principle can<br \/>\ntherefore have no objective natural content (i.e. seeking to promote knowledge<br \/>\nand truth), instead the principle will reflect the political views of the<br \/>\nperson espousing it. \u00a0Fish states that<br \/>\nthis is because for consequentialists free speech means \u2018free speech so long as<br \/>\nit does not subvert our core values\u2019.<a href=\"#_ftn30\">[30]<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Yet it is perhaps too strong to conclude that<br \/>\nthere is no such thing as no such thing as free speech. Rather, I would suggest<br \/>\nthat there is no objective free speech principle. There is no \u2018right\u2019 or better<br \/>\njustification for a free speech principle. It is better to conclude that one\u2019s<br \/>\nconception of a free speech principle will ultimately depend on one\u2019s values<br \/>\nand politics. This explains the reason that a freedom of speech principle is<br \/>\ninvoked in so many different contexts in modern day society. Whether the politician\u2019s<br \/>\nassertions undermine or do not undermine free speech will depend on what one<br \/>\nbelieves the justification of a free speech principle to be. This in turn<br \/>\ndepends upon one\u2019s core values (democracy, truth and knowledge, autonomy etc)<br \/>\nwhich is a political choice. It does not mean that there is \u2018no such thing as<br \/>\nfree speech\u2019, but that a free speech principle does not have a fixed content or<br \/>\njustification as one\u2019s conception of free speech will ultimately depend on<br \/>\none\u2019s views and politics. Therefore, it is impossible to give a concrete yes or<br \/>\nno answer as to whether the politician\u2019s assertions undermine freedom of<br \/>\nspeech. Instead, this will depend on how an individual chooses to justify a<br \/>\nfreedom of speech principle. \u00a0<\/p>\n<h2>Conclusion<\/h2>\n<p>In conclusion, whether an assertion by a<br \/>\npowerful politician that his critics among the media are purveyors of \u2018fake<br \/>\nnews\u2019 undermines free speech or not, depends upon what one thinks to be the<br \/>\njustification of a free speech principle. This is in turn dependent on one\u2019s<br \/>\npolitical views and values. Accordingly, a free speech principle has no<br \/>\nobjective content and it cannot be said for certain whether cries of \u2018fake<br \/>\nnews\u2019 like that of the politician will undermine free speech. For example, if<br \/>\none chooses the argument from democracy and self-government, then the cry of<br \/>\n\u2018fake news\u2019 will undermine free speech if the criticisms being made were<br \/>\npolitical ones. Whereas, if one chooses the argument from truth and knowledge,<br \/>\nthen the cry of \u2018fake news\u2019 will likely undermine free speech. <\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\"\/>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a> Eric Barendt, <em>Freedom<br \/>\nof Speech, <\/em>(2<sup>nd<\/sup> edn, OUP 2007) 7<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\">[2]<\/a> Alexander Meiklejohn, <em>Free<br \/>\nSpeech and its Relation to Self-Government, <\/em>(Harper 1948) ch1 <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\">[3]<\/a> Alexander Meiklejohn, <em>Free<br \/>\nSpeech and its Relation to Self-Government, <\/em>(Harper 1948) 16<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref4\">[4]<\/a> Alexander Meiklejohn, <em>Free<br \/>\nSpeech and its Relation to Self-Government, <\/em>(Harper 1948) 19.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref5\">[5]<\/a> Alexander Meiklejohn, <em>Free<br \/>\nSpeech and its Relation to Self-Government, <\/em>(Harper 1948) 22.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref6\">[6]<\/a> Alexander Meiklejohn, <em>Free<br \/>\nSpeech and its Relation to Self-Government, <\/em>(Harper 1948) 25.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref7\">[7]<\/a> Frederik Schauer, <em>Free Speech: a<br \/>\nphilosophical enquiry, <\/em>(CUP 1982) 35.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref8\">[8]<\/a> <a>Eric Barendt, <em>Freedom<br \/>\nof Speech, <\/em>(2<sup>nd<\/sup> edn, OUP 2007) 18<\/a>. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref9\">[9]<\/a> Frederik Schauer, <em>Free Speech: a<br \/>\nphilosophical enquiry, <\/em>(CUP 1982) 36. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref10\">[10]<\/a> Eric Barendt, <em>Freedom<br \/>\nof Speech, <\/em>(2<sup>nd<\/sup> edn, OUP 2007) 19. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref11\">[11]<\/a> Eric Barendt, <em>Freedom<br \/>\nof Speech, <\/em>(2<sup>nd<\/sup> edn, OUP 2007) 19. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref12\">[12]<\/a> Frederik Schauer, <em>Free Speech: a<br \/>\nphilosophical enquiry, <\/em>(CUP 1982) 41. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref13\">[13]<\/a> John Stuart Mill, <em>On Liberty, <\/em>(first<br \/>\npublished 1859, CUP 1989), ch2. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref14\">[14]<\/a> John Stuart Mill, <em>On Liberty, <\/em>(first<br \/>\npublished 1859, CUP 1989), 53. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref15\">[15]<\/a> John Stuart Mill, <em>On Liberty, <\/em>(first<br \/>\npublished 1859, CUP 1989), 37. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref16\">[16]<\/a> Eric Barendt, <em>Freedom<br \/>\nof Speech, <\/em>(2<sup>nd<\/sup> edn, OUP 2007) 10.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref17\">[17]<\/a> Eric Barendt, <em>Freedom<br \/>\nof Speech, <\/em>(2<sup>nd<\/sup> edn, OUP 2007) 10. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref18\">[18]<\/a> Eric Barendt, <em>Freedom<br \/>\nof Speech, <\/em>(2<sup>nd<\/sup> edn, OUP 2007) 8. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref19\">[19]<\/a> Eric Barendt, <em>Freedom<br \/>\nof Speech, <\/em>(2<sup>nd<\/sup> edn, OUP 2007) 9. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref20\">[20]<\/a> Frederik Schauer, <em>Free Speech: a<br \/>\nphilosophical enquiry, <\/em>(CUP 1982) 23. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref21\">[21]<\/a> Eric Barendt, <em>Freedom<br \/>\nof Speech, <\/em>(2<sup>nd<\/sup> edn, OUP 2007) 9. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref22\">[22]<\/a> Eric Barendt, <em>Freedom<br \/>\nof Speech, <\/em>(2<sup>nd<\/sup> edn, OUP 2007) 9.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref23\">[23]<\/a> Ronald Dworkin,<em><br \/>\nFreedom\u2019s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution (<\/em>Harvard<br \/>\n1996), ch8. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref24\">[24]<\/a> Thomas Scanlon, <em>\u2018Freedom of Expression and<br \/>\nCategories of Expression\u2019<\/em>, (1979) 40 U. Pitt. L. Rev 519<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref25\">[25]<\/a> See Eric Barendt, <em>Freedom of Speech, <\/em>(2<sup>nd<\/sup><br \/>\nedn, OUP 2007) 14-16. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref26\">[26]<\/a> Stanley Fish, <em>There\u2019s No Such Thing As Free<br \/>\nSpeech, and it\u2019s a good thing too<\/em> (OUP, 1994) 90.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref27\">[27]<\/a> Stanley Fish, <em>There\u2019s No Such Thing As Free<br \/>\nSpeech, and it\u2019s a good thing too<\/em> (OUP, 1994) 90. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref28\">[28]<\/a> Stanley Fish, <em>There\u2019s No Such Thing As Free<br \/>\nSpeech, and it\u2019s a good thing too<\/em> (OUP, 1994) 90. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref29\">[29]<\/a> Stanley Fish, <em>There\u2019s No Such Thing As Free<br \/>\nSpeech, and it\u2019s a good thing too<\/em> (OUP, 1994) 19.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref30\">[30]<\/a> Stanley Fish, <em>There\u2019s No Such Thing As Free<br \/>\nSpeech, and it\u2019s a good thing too<\/em> (OUP, 1994) 19.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A powerful politician falsely asserts that his critics among the media are purveyors of \u2018fake news\u2019. Could such assertions undermine freedom of speech?\u2019 In order to assess whether the assertions like that of the politician undermine freedom of speech, one first needs to assess what the point or justification of a freedom of speech principle [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5798],"tags":[9845,5294,9887,9867,9888,9889,9890,9886,9885],"class_list":["post-74891","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-media","tag-1-dissertation-writing-service-in-uk","tag-bishops-writing-bureau","tag-cn","tag-create-a-paper-using-the-following-criteria","tag-homework-help-assignment-answers","tag-in-1050-word-essay","tag-in-a-4-to-6-page-essay","tag-in-a-page-paper-assignment","tag-write-an-essay-in-words"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74891","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=74891"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74891\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74891"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74891"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74891"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}