Ishita

 Gupta  
Free  Speech  –  Final  Paper  
Professor  Thomas  Keenan  
 
The Negative and Positive Freedom of Speech

The ability to articulate and express ideas for personal as well as political purposes is

unique to humanity. This ability is, however, not without restraint. Since antiquity, various

thinkers have explored the idea of freedom in order to expound the relationship between

individuals and their society. Human beings have used their ability to express ideas as a

means to organize themselves into political entities expanding the notion of self from the

individual to a community, group or a nation; thereby creating the need to demarcate

boundaries for the individual and the group in order to ensure freedom for all. This paper

analyzes Isiah Berlin’s Two Concepts of Liberty in context of the freedom of speech and uses

the example of offensive speech to argue that freedom of speech is both ‘positive’ and

‘negative’ as it has implications for both the individual, and society as a whole.

The word ‘freedom’ has been interpreted in many different ways for various purposes.

Berlin identifies the terms as being “protean”, a term “whose meaning is so porous that there

is little interpretation that it seems to resist” (Berlin 2). It continues to be implicated in the

spiritual, philosophical and political life of the individual. Berlin contends that ‘freedom’, in

its traditional sense is understood as ‘freedom from’ wherein it is conceptually indicative of a

lack of restraint. In other words, freedom is the antithesis of restraint. The idea of ‘freedom’

in a political sense is contingent on the relationship between the individual and society.

Consequently, the passive notion of freedom as lack of restraint is inadequate to wholly

comprehend the dialectical relationship between the two entities. There is an element of

active participation in the creation of an organized community that extends the notion of

freedom beyond what Berlin regards as the ‘negative freedom from’ to the ‘positive freedom

to’- to create, perpetuate and even change this structure of the commune.

  1  
Ishita  Gupta  
Free  Speech  –  Final  Paper  
Professor  Thomas  Keenan  
 
The negative concept of freedom in Berlin’s point of view is based on two premises.

The first is a distinction between the private and the public wherein freedom of the individual

entails the creation of the private realm as a space free from invasion; invasion meaning

interference with the private practices, creeds and acts of an individual. The second is that it

is only with the provision of a free private space that the individual and society as a whole

can develop. The first premise creates boundaries for a space free from coercion wherein a

person can act according to his/her own free will. This liberal notion of freedom, although

varying in the extent of boundaries of the private and public spheres, as Berlin argues, has

been celebrated and praised throughout the history of liberalism. Demarcating boundaries of

the private and public spheres of action and control also necessarily entails the need for

restraint on human action. “Men are largely interdependent, and no man’s activity is so

completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way” (Berlin, 4). The notion

of freedom contains within itself, a paradox such that man is free so long as his freedom does

not encroach upon the freedom of another individual. It is this paradox that denies coercion in

the private sphere and at the same time warrants the establishment of a rule of law in the

public sphere of human activity in order to preserve freedom.

The second premise in the argument for ‘negative’ freedom assigns a purpose to the

first. It contends that there is a need for a private sphere wherein the individual can exercise

his/her freedom without any constrains for the development of the individual and society as a

whole. “We must preserve a minimum area of personal freedom if we are not to ‘degrade or

deny our nature’” (Berlin 5). Coalescing with a utilitarian perspective, the need for a free

private space is centered on the view that, “civilization cannot advance” (quoted in Berlin, 6)

in the absence of such a space.

  2  
Ishita  Gupta  
Free  Speech  –  Final  Paper  
Professor  Thomas  Keenan  
 
The ‘positive’ concept of freedom holds that the notion of freedom extends beyond the

passive ‘freedom from’ (restrain or coercion) to the active ‘freedom to’ pursue a certain end.

This conception broadens the scope of freedom for both the individual and the community

such that the end sought through the exercise of freedom would be in the interest of the

collective and its constituents. Fundamental to this notion of freedom is rationalism. While

the notion of ‘negative’ freedom recognizes that individual interests may at times conflict,

and consequently limits freedom for its self-preservation, rationalism is the ability inherent to

all human beings that allows them to rationally comprehend the order of things such that they

can always identify a reasonable purpose behind structures that curtail their freedom. As a

result, the individual and the collective seek a common purpose derived from reason. “The

notion of liberty contained in it is not the ‘negative’ conception of a field (ideally) without

obstacles, a vacuum in which nothing obstructs me, but the notion of self-direction or self-

control” (Berlin, 15). This notion of liberty disregards individual freedom from coercion1 in

order to fulfill a common rational purpose. However, as Berlin argues, this freedom to

coerce, is not considered to be paternalistic or authoritarian because man, as a rational being

is capable of understanding the purpose behind such an act, which, once comprehended

reflects the actual will of the individual.

The distinction between the ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ conceptions of freedom has

implications for the theory of free speech. Speech is a form of articulation and expression of

ideas, thoughts, beliefs and opinions. It is simultaneously a private and public activity. It is

private insofar as it is limited to the individual without having implications for those around.

                                                                                                               
1
Berlin argues that this form of subjugation is not coercion per se since the rule this imposed is actually derived
from the rational will of the individual and once understood by the individual as such, would not be resisted.

  3  
Ishita  Gupta  
Free  Speech  –  Final  Paper  
Professor  Thomas  Keenan  
 
Nevertheless, at the same time, as Stanley Fish contends2, all speech is made for an

instrumental purpose. Once there is an identifiable purpose behind any kind of expression, it

automatically transcends the private sphere and spills into the public realm by implicating

those other than the speaker. The demarcation of the private and public realms of freedom

that legitimizes certain acts of freedom over others in order to ensure justice for all cannot be

clearly applicable to the freedom of speech. Insofar as speech is protected from authoritarian

control in the private sphere of the individual, it constitutes ‘negative’ liberty. It is

nonetheless important to consider what constitutes this private sphere. Speech as an act as

well as the forums through which it is exercised, renders the distinction between the public

and private very elusive. As an act, as Fish would contend, it necessarily implicates others by

having a purpose behind its utterance. With technological advancement and the Internet

boom, private speech is no longer private per se. The forums available for speech extend any

speech made in the so-called private sphere into the public realm by making itself available to

the public at large. For instance, blog posts or posts on social networking sites such as

Facebook are oftentimes scrutinized for being offensive or inciting even if the speech in

question may be nothing more than an individual’s own belief or opinion.

Freedom of speech constitutes not only the act of speech but also its substance. Speech

is made free oftentimes with regard to its subject matter. While most democracies today have

laws for the protection of freedom of speech, any speech that can be considered an incitement

or offensive speech that threatens the peace and security of a region may be curtailed to

achieve the larger purpose of the preservation of society. These restrictions are arbitrary and

subject to its perceived consequences for any society. For instance, debates surrounding the
                                                                                                               
2
“I say that there is no such thing as "free speech", that is, speech that has as its rationale nothing more than its
own production.” Stanley Fish interview – “There is no such thing as Free Speech.”

  4  
Ishita  Gupta  
Free  Speech  –  Final  Paper  
Professor  Thomas  Keenan  
 
Danish cartoon controversy highlight the political implications of offensive speech. Speech

that is deemed offensive and consequently eliminated from the public sphere satisfies the

‘negative’ conception of freedom. Offensive speech especially targeting minorities can be

discriminatory and may reinforce negative stereotypes perpetuating the systematic

subjugation of minority groups. As in the case of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet

Mohammad, those in favor of restricting offensive speech argued that terrorist depictions of

the Muslim Prophet were not only offensive to the religious sentiments of the Muslim

community but also buttressed the already prevalent discriminatory attitudes against Muslims

in Europe. Responding to a petition requesting legal action against the publication “in the

interest of inter-faith harmony, better integration and Denmark's overall relations with the

Muslim world”3, the Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen stated:

“The freedom of expression has a wide scope and the Danish government has no
means of influencing the press. However, Danish legislation prohibits acts or
expressions of blasphemous or discriminatory nature. The offended party may
bring such acts or expressions to court, and it is for the courts to decide in
individual cases.”4

The Prime Minister’s response exemplifies implications of the ‘negative’ conception of

liberty in the theory of free speech. Offensive speech is free from authoritarian control

insofar as it does not harm individuals and groups it targets. The ‘negative’ freedom of

speech does not allow for an overall prohibition of offensive speech simply in response

to the affect it produces. However, it warrants restrictions when the speech in question

can be deemed harmful for the target group. Harm, in this sense, would mean a denial

of freedom of others implicated by such speech. As a result, the faction that supported
                                                                                                               
3
Quote in a letter to the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen from the Ambassadors of Turkey,
Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Libya,
Morocco and the Head of Palestinian General Delegation. http://www.rogerbuch.dk/jpabrev.pdf
4
Quote in a letter responding to the petition from representatives of the international Muslim community.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060219083657/http://gfx-master.tv2.dk/images/Nyhederne/Pdf/side3.pdf

  5  
Ishita  Gupta  
Free  Speech  –  Final  Paper  
Professor  Thomas  Keenan  
 
the harm principle of offensive speech, as the denial of freedoms to European Muslims

by perpetuating negative stereotypes and systematic discrimination of the minority

group invoked the ‘negative’ concept of freedom.

While on the one hand, the ‘negative’ ‘freedom from’ concept of liberty sets limits for

the freedom of speech, it can be argued that those in favor of unrestrained free speech invoke

the ‘positive’ freedom to pursue unrestricted speech to achieve a higher end. As discussed

earlier in the paper, the ‘positive’ notion of freedom is grounded in rationalism. It allows

freedom of one to prevail over the freedom of others so long as there is a rational basis for

such subjugation. In context of freedom of speech, the right to offend is based on a similar

paradigm. In the Politics of Offense Michiel Bot argues that offensive speech when

constructed in a rational manner, as a means to critically challenge existing social and

political structures constitutes a right that needs to be protected. He argues that suppression of

rational criticism on the grounds that it may hurt sentiments, threatens the freedom of speech.

The right to offend is tantamount to the ‘positive’ concept of freedom if the offensive speech

is grounded in reason. Once reasoned, such speech can be logically understood even by those

it specifically targets or offends. Moreover, it can be argued that offensive speech, when

understood as rational, constructive criticism is purported to achieve a higher end, that is, the

advancement of society through a paradigm shift in the societal structure. It is important to

note that the speech in question has to be rationalized for such a right to be absolute. Offense

speech purported solely to offend and insult does not warrant such protection.

The trial of the Russian punk band, Pussy Riot is an interesting example to understand

the implications of the ‘positive’ freedom to offend. Members of the band were detained on

grounds of offense for executing a punk performance in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.

During their trial, members of the band maintained that while they did not intend to attack or

  6  
Ishita  Gupta  
Free  Speech  –  Final  Paper  
Professor  Thomas  Keenan  
 
hurt the religious sentiments of Christians, their performance was intended to accentuate the

corrupt relationship between the Church and the State. By rationalizing the act and the

intention behind the act, the ‘positive’ concept of liberty warrants the protection of the

freedom to offend.

Berlin argues that the ‘negative’ concept of freedom, because of its individualistic

characteristics, is less likely to be used to establish draconian measures of control. It

recognizes the need for a free private space while simultaneously creating a space for

practicing restraint based on the observation that human interests do not always coincide and

are many-a-times conflicting. The ‘positive’ notion of freedom, on the other hand, assumes

the existence of some inherent rationality in all humanity and warrants the invocation of a

paternalistic notion of unrestrained freedom. From the examples discussed in the paper,

freedom of speech can be understood both in terms of the ‘negative’ and positive’ notions of

liberty. Moreover, both conceptions can implicate the theory of free speech in equally liberal

and draconian ways. Just as the liberal notion of free speech, free from restraint within a

private sphere can be subjected to arbitrary restrictions because of nebulous private-public

boundaries, the positive conception of the freedom of speech confers unlimited power on this

freedom based on a vague assumption of rationality. The theory of free speech is strongly

contingent on the speech act, the substance of the speech, the political position of the speaker

and his/her audience as well as the context in which the speech was made. Determination of

these many factors complicates the theory of free speech situating it in a complex web of the

‘negative’ and ‘positive’ notions of freedom.

  7  
Ishita  Gupta  
Free  Speech  –  Final  Paper  
Professor  Thomas  Keenan  
 
Works Cited

Berlin, Isaiah. Two Concepts of Liberty: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered before the

University of Oxford on 31 October 1958. Oxford: Clarendon, 1958. Web.  

  8