Free Speech With Limits

There is an interesting conversation in the news these days that has come out of Kentucky and is now part of the national debate. It started with Rand Paul, a libertarian who recently captured the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. As a libertarian, Paul believes the government should play a limited role in the lives of its citizens. In recent interviews, Paul talked about his views on the 1964 Civil Rights Act in which the federal government declared, in part, it is against the law for businesses to not serve or discriminate against persons of color. While speaking against discrimination of any kind, Paul has also implied he believes the government was wrong to dictate what privately-owned businesses can and cannot do. Private owners, Paul said, should be free to serve whoever they want without interference from the government even if their actions are judged to be morally wrong.

One intriguing aspect of this position is the support for what I call the "pure action" that Paul and many other libertarians espouse: so long as there is no harm to others, then people should be free to do whatever they want. It is the essence of individual liberty. Of course, the reality of our nation is that none of us are allowed to behave in total freedom. There is a direct correlation here to communication. In our nation, for instance, pure free speech does not exist. Hate speech, to cite one example, is against the law. Numerous laws, in fact, exist that determine the boundaries in which communication can and should be carried out.

Communicators are free to devise ways to promote various products, messages and images, but only if they do so within specific guidelines or parameters. Corporate speech, a concept designed to protect consumers, illustrates this. A clever communicator can devise the cleverest of messages to promote a product, but if those messages contains falsehoods and defamatory statements, then the persons who wrote them as well as their sponsors can be held libel. Perhaps a libertarian would disagree with such a law. Yet to help ensure that freedom of behavior or speech are practiced responsibility, then clear limits are necessary.