Speech, Truth, and Freedom: An Examination of John Stuart Mill's and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's Free Speech Defenses
Speech, Truth, and Freedom: An Examination of John Stuart Mill's and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's Free Speech Defenses
复制标题
言论、真理与自由：对约翰·斯图尔特·米尔和奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯法官的言论自由辩护的审视
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Irene
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Cate;M. Irene
本文首次深入比较了深刻影响第一修正案的两种经典的言论自由辩护：约翰·斯图尔特·密尔的《论自由》和霍姆斯法官在《艾布拉姆斯诉美国案》中的反对意见。两种辩护都认为，不同意见言论在集体寻求真相的努力中发挥着关键作用，并且它们经常被归为一类，倡导思想市场，这一隐喻已成为美国宪法中的固定条款。然而，本文发现，经过更仔细的审查，这两种理论基于对追求真理和言论在这一事业中的作用的根本不同的观点。密尔设想了一个过程，在这个过程中，相反意见之间的冲突会导致在揭示普遍的、不可改变的真理方面取得进展。表达不受欢迎观点的个人是不可或缺的，因为他们对主流观点的挑战使对真理的探索以及已经发现的真理的意义保持活力。艾布拉姆斯的异议中提到的真理，与霍姆斯的学术著作和信件中对该主题的阐述一致，最好被解读为指的是多数人或主导力量为应对对现状的内部和外部挑战而做出的选择。霍姆斯对言论自由的承诺似乎主要基于其在维护决策派系形成过程中的作用。本文认为，理解两种辩护之间差异的关键在于关于自由的思想，而自由思想是米尔和霍姆斯世界观的核心。密尔认为，个人是自由的，因为他们有能力选择自己的信仰，即使他们经常选择不加批判地追随主流的更简单的选择。同时，他相信社会可以创造有利于个人繁荣的条件。密尔的言论自由辩护不仅基于这样的论点，即如果有多种选择，个人更有可能选择真正的信仰，而且还基于这样的观念：一个重视异议的社会会促进其公民性格特征的发展，从而使社会繁荣。另一方面，霍姆斯认为个人受到偶然环境形成的根深蒂固的偏好的限制，但认为社会不断发展和调整，并且在很大程度上可以自由决定其未来的发展方向。他的辩护建立在宪法承诺的基础上，即在一个不确定且不断变化的世界中维护集体自决的条件。
This Article is the first in-depth comparison of two classic defenses of free speech that have profoundly influenced First Amendment law: John Stuart Mill's On Liberty and Justice Holmes's dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States. Both defenses argue that dissenting speech plays a critical role in a collective truth-seeking endeavor, and they are often grouped together as advocating for a marketplace of ideas, a metaphor that has become a fixture in American constitutional law.However, this Article finds that, on closer examination, the two theories are grounded in fundamentally different views of the quest for truth and the role of speech in this undertaking. Mill envisions a process in which clashes between contrary opinions lead to progress in uncovering universal, unchangeable truths. Individuals who express unpopular views are indispensable, as their challenges to prevailing opinions keep the search for truth, and the meaning of already discovered truths, alive. The mentions of truth in the Abrams dissent, consistent with elaborations on the subject in Holmes's scholarly writings and correspondence, are best read as referring to choices made by majorities or dominant forces in response to internal and external challenges to the status quo. Holmes's commitment to free speech appears to be based primarily on its role in safeguarding a process by which decision-making factions can be formed This Article argues that a key to understanding the differences between the two defenses lies in the ideas about freedom that are at the heart of Mill and Holmes's world views. Mill believes that individuals are free in the sense that they have the ability to choose their beliefs, even if they frequently opt for the easier alternative of uncritically following the mainstream. At the same time, he believes that a society can create conditions that are conducive to individual flourishing. Mill's free speech defense is based not only on the argument that individuals are more likely to pick true beliefs if presented with several alternatives, but also on the notion that a society that prizes dissent promotes the development of character traits in its citizens that will in turn allow that society to prosper. Holmes, on the other hand, views individuals as constrained by firmly rooted preferences shaped by accidental circumstances, but regards society as constantly evolving and adjusting and, to a large extent, free to determine its future course. His defense is staked on a constitutional commitment to safeguarding the conditions for collective self-determination in an uncertain and perpetually changing world.