© NOTAVANDAL
Follow any debate over censorship these days, and one is likely to hear this misguided view stated repeatedly. It means, in effect, that free speech is a legal right against the government, but not a spirit or value that the broader society should honor. In an interview with Above the Law, First Amendment lawyer Ken White (of "Popehat" fame) colorfully articulates this perspective:
Recently you see, from the Right, (and from some Libertarians), a tremendous amount of bullshit about "the spirit of free speech."White's position is a confused one, but it reflects a worrisome movement toward devaluing free and open discussion, so it needs to be addressed. Let's start with the confusion. For advocates of free speech as a "spirit" or cultural value, an important distinction exists between disagreement and retaliation. Obviously everyone should feel free to criticize anyone else, even in harsh terms, because that's necessary for robust debate. If the "spirit of free speech" were supposed to render every speaker immune from criticism, then the concept would clearly be self-defeating.
"The spirit of free speech" can be summarized as saying that not only is racist speech protected from prosecution and civil suits, it ought also be protected from other people's response speech.... [N]ot only should they not be prosecuted (right) or sued (right), but it would be wrong to boycott them, shun them, encourage public condemnation of them that might cost them their job, and so forth, because that "chills speech."
Basically, the "spirit of free speech" people want a world where people can be consequence-free assholes: where there's a set of rules of civility and high-minded discourse that apply only to the responses...
Comment: See also: