---------------------------------

Jess asked:

I am writing a paper about Kant, but specifically on how Kant would view free speech. I have been
stuck on this question for about a week now and have not come up with a reasonable answer.

============

Underlying all of Kant's practical philosophy (ethics, politics, history) is his commitment to the
paramount value of the freedom of human beings as 'ends in themselves'. Any action that is not
permitted by The Categorical Imperative will be immoral because ultimately it will corrupt this freedom
(of oneself and of others). Any laws that a state regulates are ones that must necessarily protect and
promote this freedom.

Starting out from this position Kant distinguished innate and acquired rights. We acquire rights when
situations occur when we have to enter into interpersonal agreements with others, such as property
agreements and work contracts. Such circumstances necessarily require that we impinge on the
freedom of others, therefore laws and regulations are needed to protect us from undue or excessive
impingement's. In other words, laws are an a priori rational requirement of public interaction. (in a
sense Kant has a theory of the social contract). Where no such interaction, co-operation, or common
agreement is required there is no need for regulation.

Holding certain beliefs and opinions does not require any interpersonal activity and expressing those
beliefs does not itself necessarily impinge on the freedom of others. Because these other people are
themselves free either to ignore, disbelieve, or form there own opinions, what is said cannot affect
their own freedom. Therefore, for Kant there is no need for regulation controlling free speech. Free
speech is an innate right that is derived from a person's fundamental value as a free being.

Of course, there will be cases where expressing the belief will affect the freedom of others, these
cases will. involve using other people as means to some end that they themselves have not agreed
to, in which case Kant would agree to the regulation of expression. But it is important to make clear
that Kant is not regulating against the belief that is expressed (people can still believe what they want)
but the Act of expression that will result in the contamination of others' freedom.

Brian Tee
Dept of Philosophy
University of Sheffield