From one perspective, a right is an obligation placed on some other party to do or refrain from doing something to(for) you. The right of free speech, for example, effectively means that government shall take no steps to curtail speech. On the other hand, even among so- called "First Amendment Absolutists", there are limits, the most obvious being the "clear and present danger" test, which curtails your right to incite a crowd to violence. Similarly, even the ACLU acquiesces in the idea that there are limits to commercial speech: one cannot sell a product under false pretenses, and can be forced to disclose certain information about the product. Additionally, one cannot libel another with impunity.Finally, for purposes of example, the government has a right to make certain information secret, for reasons of national security, and to take steps to prevent or punish its dissemination.
Now, there are many duties that we have, but they ordinarily part of a larger calculus, so that we are not required to tell the truth when it would materially aid someone seeking to do evil, or to give up car keys to a drunk. In that vein, the duty of the government to refrain from curtailing or punishing speech is limited by various considerations, such as the indisputable harm that may result in certain circumstances. The reason that it is right, rather than a privilege, however, is that the government has to meet a high threshold before limiting it, rather than being able to determine its extent arbitrarily. In most instances, we opt to ere in favor of allowing harmful speech, because we are loathe to impede the free flow of information, forestall the free exchange of ideas, and intrude upon private conscience. But that does not mean that there are no cases where we would not limit speech, nor that all of them will be easy or beyond dispute. If the causation were sufficiently convincing in the case of novel reading, and the harm were great enough, I suppose that we would be remiss not to at least debate the matter, instead of putting it aside because of a "right". If someone had a drug that was seeping into the groundwater that would cause madness, would it be a gross violation of his rights to insist upon coming onto his property and removing the hazard? |
