When to Suppress Speech

• Author: Michael Huemer
• Position: Professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder
• Pages: 825-843

THE SCOPE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH

When to Suppress Speech

MICHAEL HUEMER*

ABSTRACT

Private agents have good reason to suppress speech that transmits lies about

matters of objective fact or that personally attacks non-public figures. Still, they

should not suppress expressions of offensive or wrongheaded opinions about

matters of public interest. The latter kind of speech-suppression risks entrench-

ing erroneous beliefs, sowing distrust and polarization in society, corrupting in-

tellectual discourse, unintentionally chilling discussion of related matters, and

undermining the foundation of liberal social order. The best approach to bad

ideas is to engage them in reasoned debate. While engaging with bad ideas pro-

vides no guarantee that the truth will win out, it is better than the alternative of

ideological censorship.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. THE QUESTION OF PRIVATE SUPPRESSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826

II. THE CASE FOR SUPPRESSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828

A. Psychological Harm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828

B. Political Harm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829

III. THE CASE AGAINST SUPPRESSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831

A. The Risk of Error. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831

B. Entrenched Opposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832

C. Intellectual Corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833

D. Penumbral Suppression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834

E. Political Costs: The Foundations of Liberal Order. . . . . . . . . 835

* Michael Huemer is a professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He is the

author of over seventy academic articles in epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and political philosophy,

as well as eight excellent books that you should immediately buy, including The Problem of Political

Authority and Justice Before the Law. © 2022, Michael Huemer.

825

IV. FOR LIMITED CENSORSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836

A. Lies Versus Bad Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 836

B. The Costs of Suppression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837

1. The Risk of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837

2. Entrenching Opposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837

3. Intellectual Corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838

4. Penumbral Suppression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839

5. Liberal Social Order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839

C. The Political Costs of Free Speech. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839

V. QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840

A. Completely Unreasonable Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840

B. Semi-Honest Content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841

C. Insults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841

VI. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842

I. THE QUESTION OF PRIVATE SUPPRESSION

Most discussion of restrictions on free speech concerns restrictions imposed by

the state. An under-theorized but increasingly relevant question is when a private

agent ought to restrict speech. Here, I am not asking a political or legal question. I

am not asking, for example, what laws should exist concerning speech restrictions

by private agents, or when a private agent should be held liable for restricting or

failing to restrict speech. Nor am I asking when a private agent has the right to

restrict speech. I am asking the ethical question of when a private agent ought to

suppress speech. When is this a desirable and morally decent thing to do?

There are many circumstances in which a private agent faces this question.

Some private companies, for example, maintain message boards where employ-

ees hold discussions. In the event that controversial material appears on the mes-

sage board, company management has to decide whether and how to react. Such

was the case at Google in 2017, when James Damore posted his now-famous

essay, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” to an internal company message

board.

1

Kate Conger, Exclusive: Here’s The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at

Google [Updated], GIZMODO (Aug. 5, 2017, 4:30 PM), https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-

10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320 [https://perma.cc/JT96-LTTD].

The essay argued that the shortage of gender diversity in the tech industry,

especially among software engineers, could be partly explained by men and

1.

826 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY [Vol. 20:825