Freeman

ARTICLE

Free Speech

NOVEMBER 01, 1964 by DEAN RUSSELL

In the United States, the police will protect everyone (including a communist) in his right to speak freely. True enough, local passions in certain sections of our nation still restrict freedom of speech on certain topics, but the fact re­mains that there is less of this in­terference today than ever before in our history. So far as I know, every good and bad economic and political and social idea known to man is being advocated by some­one today in every state of our union—publicly and under police protection.

Of course, there have always been economic consequences at­tached to speaking one’s mind. But surely that is good rather than bad; for presumably, no one would exercise his freedom to speak on controversial issues unless he wanted something to happen. And only a childish mind could dream of a situation in which the conse­quences would invariably be fa­vorable to the speaker and never unfavorable. For example, I have always spoken freely and publicly against governmental intervention in our economy. That attitude is, of course, supported by only a small minority today. Thus I was hardly surprised at the reaction a few years ago when I was search­ing for my first teaching job. The top administrators of several of our most famous universities stated quite clearly that they did not want me as an instructor of economics in their classrooms; they honestly believe that I am too one-sided and narrow in my viewpoints. Several other schools, however, were quite willing to ex­pose their students to my view­points. I accepted the best offer for my services, and eventually became Professor of Economics and Head of the Department in an excellent liberal arts college.

That’s the way it should be—each person speaking freely, and being grateful indeed that poten­tial employers have the freedom to hire, or not to hire, on the basis of an applicant’s announced philos­ophy or, for that matter, for any other reason.

I note with considerable alarm, however, that many of my teach­ing colleagues have a different idea of freedom of speech. Under the vague heading of “academic free­dom,” they insist on the right to say anything they please, but com­plain that their freedom of speech is being interfered with when the economic consequences of their speaking are unfavorable rather than favorable. Such a person neither understands nor wants freedom of speech; he merely wants a special privilege that will protect him against the economic actions of persons who disagree with what he says. This is a fatal step away from freedom.

***

The Supreme Test

The supreme test of an educated person is his willingness to sacrifice for an abstract ideal.

ASSOCIATED ISSUE

November 1964

comments powered by Disqus

EMAIL UPDATES

* indicates required
Sign me up for...

CURRENT ISSUE

July/August 2014

The United States' corporate tax burden is the highest in the world, but innovators will always find a way to duck away from Uncle Sam's reach. Doug Bandow explains how those with the means are renouncing their citizenship in increasing numbers, while J. Dayne Girard describes the innovative use of freeports to shield wealth from the myriad taxes and duties imposed on it as it moves around the world. Of course the politicians brand all of these people unpatriotic, hoping you won't think too hard about the difference between the usual crony-capitalist suspects and the global creative elite that have done so much to improve our lives. In a special tech section, Joseph Diedrich, Thomas Bogle, and Matthew McCaffrey look at various ways these innovators add value to our lives--even in ways they probably never expected.
Download Free PDF

PAST ISSUES

SUBSCRIBE

RENEW YOUR SUBSCRIPTION