Exploring the meaning of free speech with Katharine Gelber

Exploring the meaning of free speech 42
of what it means to be as a human being living in a society, living in a
community. 3) The argument from democracy, also privileges political speech:
the argument that we need to be able to engage in speech in order to self-govern,
and to do that in a democratic way. 4) The argument from self-fulfilment:
engaging in speech so that we develop our own individual capacities.
In free speech literature there’s an assumption that political speech ought to be
particularly protected. However, in that same literature there’s very little clear
elucidation of what political speech is. In my work I have tended to think of
political speech as that speech which is facilitative of both one’s ability to live
socially and to govern socially - to self-govern, that is, to have a society that is
democratic in which we can participate.
So it helps us; speech helps us make democracy happen; speech is part of making
democracy happen. For us as citizens, speech is constitutive of what we need to
be able to do to develop our ability to participate in relevant democratic
processes. So at both the individual level and the social level, political speech is
the means by which we make democracy happen.
JC
KG:
JC:
KG:
Can I follow up? How do you distinguish political speech from other forms of
speech? Has the distinction to do with the arena in which speech takes place? Or
is it about the content of the speech?
Again, that is a very good question. But it is not very clearly answerable.
Three types of speech are set off against free speech. Commercial speech is not
regarded as, or is set off as distinct from political speech: even in the United
States, commercial speech is much more easily regulable than other types of
speech. Obscenity, particularly pornography, certain types of pornographies, is
also set off as distinct from political speech. And the third one might be artistic
speech. But again there’s a blurry line because it depends on the kind of art you’re
talking about. Some art, which seeks to be a sort of expression of creativity,
might not be definable as political speech. But some art I can think of would be
very political.
The distinction you seem to be pointing towards has to do with the purpose of the
content of the speech. But in your book you discuss the use of flags and also
certain kinds of artistic enterprise as political. Why is it, in particular, that you
see flag use as a form of political speech?
What I’m interested in is what speech does as opposed to trying to define political
speech with reference to its content, or with reference to the context in which it’s
spoken, or with reference to its audience, or with reference to its speaker. I guess
all of those things are elements of it, but what I’m interested in is what speech
does.