The blog will only let me publish this as a post for some reason, but it's just a comment in response to XY's most recent comment on Grace's post. Sorry for being so technologically challenged and taking up a post with this!
XY,
I think that Ripstein actually says something different about free speech; on p. 264 he says that "the Kantian analysis also explains the familiar idea that public speech is largely exempt from the police power, even when people find the speech inconvenient or troubling." I guess whether or not inflammatory speech is allowed depends partly on your definition of "inflammatory," but for the most part, I think that public speech--both pleasant and unpleasant--is allowed under Ripstein/Kant's view. Ripstein actually goes on to say that the ability of to exercise free public speech is so important because it functions as a tool "through which the state can bring itself more nearly into conformity with the concepts of right in a way that is not itself inconsistent with those concepts" (264). There might be an instance when public speech was so inflammatory that it infringed on others' freedoms, and in that case, I agree that it might not be allowed. But otherwise, public speech does not seem like it can be regulated apart from "neutral limits on time, place, and manner" (264).
I agree that extreme religious actions that infringe on other people's independence/lives would be banned under Kant's view, as would dangerous drugs that led people to hurt/kill others. However, I think it would be difficult to make a case for banning recreational drugs, as it's harder to see how recreational drug use infringes on other people's right to themselves and their property.
This is a comment to both XY and Lanie.
ReplyDeleteXY,
I think the quote from Ripstein that you brought up does in part address my question. He believes that government should only intervene in ways "that are consistent with each person's right of humanity to independence from being constrained by another's choice." Each person has the right to act freely and the right not to be constrained in his freedom by another person's choice. Therefore, Ripstein would say religions that infringe on the rights of others' should be restricted. With the freedom of speech, however, Lanie brings up a good point that Ripstein sees speech as something that should be, perhaps, one of the least restricted. However, speech should not be protected for instances such as death threats, as this is a violation of another person's liberty to life. Regarding drug use, I think one would have to make some argument of how recreational drug use would affect others' independence.
Lanie,
I agree with you on many points. I think that it is still a difficult matter in trying to not restrict individual freedom while ensuring that others' freedoms are not violated. Issues that may be ones of more controversy are, I think, legalization of recreational drug and gun control laws. There are conflicting interests in both issues, and it is up to the state to protect individual liberty, in regard to both personal freedom and actions of people that may violate others' freedom.