Free speech
The harder cases arise where Austin himself acknowledged the boundaries blur. Can the same words be both a rallying cry and a threat? Return to the Brexit claim. If a court can demonstrate that the Leave Campaign knowingly used a false figure to manipulate, then there is a case for restriction, since voters cannot express genuine will on falsified premises. Yet a reasonable person might interpret the same words as a political promise, meaning that restriction would not be warranted. Courts must test and prove which illocutionary act was performed, not merely which words were spoken. UK law already operates on this basis – incitement to riot is clearly restricted because the illocutionary act is identifiable, suggesting that hard cases at the margins no more invalidate the distinction than difficult cases in criminal law invalidate the line between murder and manslaughter. It becomes even more troubling when harm is deliberately disguised. Grice’s co-operative principle holds that speakers are expected to be truthful, relevant, clear, and informative; a speaker who violates these maxims exploits the gap between what is said and what is communicated. Consider James (a disguised gang member) who walks into a shop and says: ‘wouldn’t it be a shame if something happened to this place?’ At the locutionary level, he has asked an innocent question; at the illocutionary level, the shopkeeper knows exactly what he means, and so does any reasonable person. James violates the maxims of clarity and truthfulness, producing a threat while maintaining deniability. Crucially, deniability shields James from prosecution and restricting him will produce a counter-claim that his free speech has been infringed, creating a legal difficulty that must be reckon with. Nevertheless, when the implied threat is clear, sufficiently harmful, and demonstrably intended, the state should treat it as any direct illocutionary act. The alternative is granting immunity to anyone sophisticated enough to phrase coercion as a question. What makes such restrictions workable is precedent, which allows speakers to measure their situation against specific, reasoned rulings rather than navigating vague categorical bans, reducing the chilling effect that broad restrictions inevitably produce. Suppose one is unconvinced and worries that any restriction, however well-targeted, makes the state an arbiter of acceptable expression. It is concerning as even democratic states can be captured by a tyranny of the majority, and the line between protecting citizens and silencing dissent is not clear cut. Yet the alternative is an epistemic commons in which malicious actors coerce and deceive without consequence. It is imperative, therefore, to restrict harmful illocutionary acts and protect the conditions under which rational judgement can operate. Perlocutionary restriction – policing the effects of speech – is the most difficult to justify. The question is not whether the state can physically suppress a text, but whether downstream effects provide sufficient justification for doing so. Marx writes the Communist Manifesto ; decades later, Lenin remakes a country with it and millions die. Should the state have suppressed the Manifesto on the grounds of the violence it eventually helped produce? Marx did not intend mass killing and would have argued the Manifesto merely named existing conditions and did not cause them. Beyond the question of attribution, there is a deeper problem of agency: Lenin chose to act on Marx’s ideas; he could have chosen otherwise. To hold Marx responsible for the Gulag is to hold Darwin responsible for social Darwinism. This framework in action is epitomized by Trump’s speech ‘And we fight. We fight like hell…’: the January 6th rioters were prosecuted for their actions; Trump was not convicted. Where effects are immediate and foreseeable, there may be grounds for restriction, but in such cases the
146
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting