Marketplace of ideas

Last updated

The marketplace of ideas is a rationale for freedom of expression based on an analogy to the economic concept of a free market. The marketplace of ideas holds that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse and concludes that ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population. The concept is often applied to discussions of patent law as well as freedom of the press and the responsibilities of the media in a liberal democracy.

Contents

History

Support for competing ideas and robust debate can be found in the philosophy of John Milton in his work Areopagitica in 1644 and also John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty in 1859. [1] The general idea that free speech should be tolerated because it will lead toward the truth has a long history. [2] English poet John Milton suggested that restricting speech was not necessary because "in a free and open encounter" truth would prevail. [3] President Thomas Jefferson argued that it is safe to tolerate "error of opinion ... where reason is left free to combat it". [4] Fredrick Siebert echoed the idea that free expression is self-correcting in Four Theories of the Press: "Let all with something to say be free to express themselves. The true and sound will survive. The false and unsound will be vanquished. Government should keep out of the battle and not weigh the odds in favor of one side or the other". [5] These writers did not rely on the economic analogy to a market.

Economic historian Joel Mokyr argues in his 2017 book A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy that political fragmentation in Europe (the presence of a large number of European states) made it possible for heterodox ideas to thrive, as entrepreneurs, innovators, ideologues, and heretics could easily flee to a neighboring state in the event that the one state would try to suppress their ideas and activities. This is what set Europe apart from the technologically advanced, large unitary empires such as China and India. China had both a printing press and movable type, and India had similar levels scientific and technological achievement as Europe in 1700, yet the Industrial Revolution would occur in Europe, not China or India. In Europe, political fragmentation was coupled with an "integrated market for ideas" where Europe's intellectuals used the lingua franca of Latin, had a shared intellectual basis in Europe's classical heritage and the pan-European institution of the Republic of Letters. [6]

However, the more precise metaphor of a marketplace of ideas comes from the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States. The first reference to the "free trade in ideas" within "the competition of the market" appears in 1919 within US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dissent in Abrams v. United States . [7] [8] The actual phrase "marketplace of ideas" first appears in a concurring opinion by Justice William O. Douglas in the Supreme Court decision United States v. Rumely : [9] "Like the publishers of newspapers, magazines, or books, this publisher bids for the minds of men in the market place of ideas." [10] The Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio enshrined the marketplace of ideas as the dominant public policy in American free speech law (that is, against which narrow exceptions to freedom of speech must be justified by specific countervailing public policies). While the previous cases dealt with natural persons,[ citation needed ] the 1976 decision Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council expanded it to corporations by creating a curtailed corporate commercial speech right, striking down a government regulation of advertising in the process. [11] It has not been seriously questioned since in United States jurisprudence,[ citation needed ] but the legacy of those decisions have led to subsequent decisions like Citizens United v. FEC that curtailed the government's ability to regulate corporate speech [11] and much more expansive advertising campaigns, commercial and political than Americans had experienced previously. [12]

If beliefs such as religions are regarded as ideas, the marketplace-of-ideas concept favors a marketplace of religions - with competition in the religious sphere to win hearts and minds [13] - rather than (for example) forcing a state religion, favoring an established church, or forbidding "incompatible" beliefs. In this sense, the marketplace of ideas provides a rationale for freedom of religion. [14]

Reliability

In recent years, questions have arisen regarding the existence of markets in ideas. Several scholars have noted differences between the way ideas are produced and consumed and the way more traditional goods are produced and consumed. [15] It has also been argued that the idea of the marketplace of ideas as applied to religion "incorrectly assumes a level playing field" among religions. [16] Additionally, the idea of a marketplace of ideas has been applied to the study of scientific research as a social institution. [17] Some scholars have also questioned whether free speech advocates have relied upon the idea of the "marketplace of ideas," offering other reasons for the importance of free speech. [18]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Ingber, Stanley (February 1984). "The Marketplace of Ideas: A Legitimizing Myth" (PDF). Duke Law Journal (1): 3. S2CID   39230639. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 28, 2018. Retrieved November 27, 2018. ... this classic image of competing ideas and robust debate dates back to English philosophers John Milton and John Stuart Mill ...
  2. ↑ "How Much Does a Belief Cost? Revisiting the Marketplace of Ideas", Gregory Brazeal, Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, vol. 21 no. 1, pp. 2–10 (2011).
  3. ↑ John Milton, Areopagitica, in Areopagitica and Of Education 1, 50 (Harlan Davidson, Inc. 1951) [1644].
  4. ↑ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1801), in Writings 492, 493 (Merrill D. Peterson ed. 1984).
  5. ↑ Siebert, Fred S. "The Libertarian Theory" in Fred S. Siebert, Theodore Peterson, and Wilbur Schramm's Four Theories of the Press: The Authoritarian, Libertarian, Social Responsibility, and Soviet Communist Concepts of What the Press Should Be and Do, p. 45. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. (1963).
  6. ↑ Mokyr, Joel (2018). A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy. Princeton University Press. ISBN   978-0691180960. Archived from the original on March 24, 2017. Retrieved March 9, 2017.{{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
  7. ↑ Abrams v. United States , 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)
  8. ↑ Timothy J. O'Neill (December 15, 2023). "Abrams v. United States (1919)". Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University. Archived from the original on February 2, 2024. Retrieved February 2, 2024.
  9. ↑ United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 56 (1953)
  10. ↑ First Amendment Fellow (May 13, 2010). "Holmes' idea marketplace – its origins & legacy | First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition". Firstamendmentcenter.org. Archived from the original on November 4, 2017. Retrieved January 1, 2014.
  11. 1 2 Winkler, Adam (2018). We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights. Liveright. ISBN   978-0871407122.
  12. ↑ Bartholomew, Mark (2017). Adcreep: The Case Against Modern Marketing. Stanford Law Books. ISBN   978-0804795814.
  13. ↑ Dimanopolou, Pandora (August 19, 2019). "From church diplomacy to civil society activism: the case of Bishop Irineos Galanakis in the framework of Greek German relations during the Cold War". In Graf Strachwitz, Rupert (ed.). Religious Communities and Civil Society in Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on a Complex Interplay, Volume I. Maecenata Schriften, volume 15. Oldenburg: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. p. 33. ISBN   9783110645880. Archived from the original on December 30, 2022. Retrieved December 30, 2022. At the same time, this ideology [modernisation in the name of class solidarity] did everything it could to acquire the same power over the hearts and minds of the masses as Christian religious structures had once achieved over the body of society ... .
  14. ↑ Ullman Chiswick, Carmel (January 2013). "Competition vs. Monopoly in the Religious Marketplace: Judaism in the United States and Israel" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on August 12, 2021. Retrieved July 2, 2013.
  15. ↑ See, e.g., How Much Does a Belief Cost? Revisiting the Marketplace of Ideas, Gregory Brazeal, Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, vol. 21 no. 1, p. 1 (2011); The Competition of Ideas: Market or Garden?, Robert Sparrow & Robert Goodin, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, vol. 4 no. 2, p. 45 (2001); Speech, Truth, and the Free Market for Ideas, Alvin I. Goldman & James C. Cox, Legal Theory, vol. 2, p. 1 (1996).
  16. ↑ See, e.g., Makau Mutua, Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. Archived April 12, 2019, at the Wayback Machine
  17. ↑ "Jesús Zamora Bonilla | Dpto. Lógica, Historia y Filosofía de la ciencia (UNED)". Uned.es. Archived from the original on March 9, 2021. Retrieved January 1, 2014.
  18. ↑ Greg Lukianoff and Nadine Strossen, "Does free speech inevitably lead towards truth?Is the marketplace of ideas a broken metaphor? https://www.thefire.org/does-free-speech-inevitably-lead-towards-truth-is-the-marketplace-of-ideas-a-broken-metaphor-part-13-of-answers-to-arguments-against-free-speech-from-nadine-stros/ Archived March 25, 2022, at the Wayback Machine

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment limiting government restriction of civil rights

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that: regulate an establishment of religion; prohibit the free exercise of religion; abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clear and present danger</span> Free speech doctrine in US constitutional law

Clear and present danger was a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, or assembly. Created by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. to refine the bad tendency test, it was never fully adopted and both tests were ultimately replaced in 1969 with Brandenburg v. Ohio's "imminent lawless action" test.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school. The court's 6–3 decision, delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson, states "the right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights" are placed "beyond the reach of majorities and officials."

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California (1927) was explicitly overruled, and Schenck v. United States (1919), Abrams v. United States (1919), Gitlow v. New York (1925), and Dennis v. United States (1951) were overturned.

<i>Areopagitica</i> 1644 prose polemic by John Milton

Areopagitica; A speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicenc'd Printing, to the Parlament of England is a 1644 prose polemic by the English poet, scholar, and polemical author John Milton opposing licensing and censorship. Areopagitica is among history's most influential and impassioned philosophical defences of the principle of a right to freedom of speech and expression. Many of its expressed principles have formed the basis for modern justifications of that right.

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a threat to society. Whitney was explicitly overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the First Amendment's provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press to apply to the governments of U.S. states. Along with Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago (1897), it was one of the first major cases involving the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. It was also one of a series of Supreme Court cases that defined the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and established the standard to which a state or the federal government would be held when it criminalized speech or writing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of thought</span> Freedom to hold a thought

Freedom of thought is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech in the United States</span> Overview of the human rights history in the North American country

In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government. The term "freedom of speech" embedded in the First Amendment encompasses the decision what to say as well as what not to say. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, prevents only government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government. However, It can be restricted by time, place and manner in limited circumstances. Some laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary to coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.

Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the 1918 Amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917 which made it a criminal offense to urge the curtailment of production of the materials necessary to wage the war against Germany with intent to hinder the progress of the war. The 1918 Amendment is commonly referred to as if it were a separate Act, the Sedition Act of 1918.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction. A chilling effect may be caused by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a court, or the threat of a lawsuit; any legal action that would cause people to hesitate to exercise a legitimate right for fear of legal repercussions. When that fear is brought about by the threat of a libel lawsuit, it is called libel chill. A lawsuit initiated specifically for the purpose of creating a chilling effect may be called a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk even though the sidewalk was part of a privately-owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech by country</span>

Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of government censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless, the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws.

Politics were an important part of John Milton's life. Milton enjoyed little wide-scale early success, either in prose or poetry, until the production of his later, controversial political works starting with The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates and Eikonoklastes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech</span> Right to communicate ones opinions and ideas

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. Terms like free speech, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are used interchangeably in political discourse. However, in a legal sense, the freedom of expression includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 (1945), is a 5-to-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the First and Fourteenth amendment freedoms of a conscientious objector were not infringed when a state bar association declined to admit him to the practice of law. The Illinois Constitution required citizens to serve in the state militia in time of war, and all lawyers admitted to the bar were required to uphold the state constitution. Petitioner Clyde Summers could not uphold that constitutional requirement due to his religious beliefs, and the Supreme Court upheld the denial of his license of practice.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.