In this talk, ARI director of legal studies Steve Simpson puts the recent attacks on free speech in a wider cultural context, and analyzes the ideas and arguments that are used to undermine the public’s understanding and appreciation of the freedom of speech.
In this episode of The Yaron Brook Show, originally airing on April 19, 2016, guest host Steve Simpson discusses how the government’s investigation of Exxon Mobile, et al., is a threat to free speech, the connection between freedom of speech and freedom of thought, how to reconcile fraud with free speech, why freedom demands conceptual clarity and what you can do to defend freedom of speech.
Attorneys General from 15 states are investigating Exxon Mobil for allegedly lying about the risks of “climate change.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington free market think tank, became entangled in the investigation when the group received a subpoena seeking information about its funding and activities going back two decades. Many in government and in the environmental movement call this a proper fraud investigation. Guest host Steve Simpson, director of legal studies at the Ayn Rand Institute, calls it an inquisition.
Today The Undercurrent published an extensive interview with Steve Simpson on the meaning of free speech and the First Amendment, as well as other topics.
From the attack on Charlie Hebdo to campus speech codes, it is clear that freedom of speech faces significant threats today. Unlike the rest of the world, America has the First Amendment to protect this right. But is the First Amendment enough?
In case you haven’t noticed, the Ayn Rand Institute has a YouTube channel that we are regularly updating with talks, lectures, debates, interviews, Q&As and seminars.
One year ago today, Islamic terrorists entered the offices of the French publication Charlie Hebdo and fired sixty shots inside of three minutes. When the smoke cleared, eleven employees of the magazine and one building maintenance worker had been killed and eleven other people in the building had been injured. The “crime” for which these individuals were being punished was blasphemy.
In his terrific book The Tyranny of Silence, Flemming Rose, who was at the center of the Danish cartoon crisis in 2006, quotes Saudi cleric and TV preacher Muhammad Al-Munajid’s reaction to the controversy: “The problem is that they want to open a debate on whether Islam is true or not . . . . they want to open up everything for a debate. That’s it. It begins with freedom of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with freedom of belief.”
Given that there are so many people today who believe that offensive speech ought to be outlawed, it’s worth rehearsing the crucial legal and moral difference between free speech and crime.
