Published in the Canadian Conservative Review, Spring 2004, p. 5.

Gag Laws Control Your Property
by
Pierre Lemieux

One libertarian approach to free speech is based on a Lockean idea: since an individual is the owner of his own body, he can do anything peaceful he wants with it, and likewise with any property he owns or of which he obtains the use through voluntary transactions. Buying broadcast time with one’s own money to express one’s opinions is as legitimate as using one’s voice to sign opera for whomever wants to hear. Electoral gag laws are wrong because they control the use on one’s body and property. Here, however, I will develop the libertarian economic approach, and ask, what is free speech useful for? For intellectuals like me, speech is fun by itself, and I like to indulge in this pleasure without risking jail. (Well, I face no risk of jail as long as I don’t express opinions deemed to be hate speech, or prohibited commercial speech, or forbidden sexual art, and as long as I don’t use too much of my own resources to broadcast my opinions during an electoral campaign. Some free speech.) What free speech does for most people, though, is to allow opinions, hypotheses and debates that publicize new lifestyles, help discover new ways of organizing social life, and contribute to better living conditions. Free speech is important in order to live and do things. Free speech prevents or attenuates conflicts. If individuals are free to express their feelings and grievances, they are less likely to take arms. As William Blackstone wrote in his famous Commentaries on the Laws of England, “the subjects of England are entitled … to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances.” This right is, of course, no less important at election times. Free speech is desirable in political matters because political decisions affect our lives. Especially for people who believe (contrary to libertarians) that politics is an efficient way for individuals to express their preferences, political free speech should be most important. Why does the political and intellectual establishment disagree with this? Why do gag laws exist in Canada? One reason is that people have come to believe in equality of speech more than in freedom of speech. “This egalitarian model of elections,” said the recent Supreme Court ruling, “seeks to create a level playing field for those who wish to engage in the electoral discourse…” This equality is an illusion: during electoral campaigns, while simple citizens and associations are gagged, intellectuals, journalists, editorialists, and politicians have free (and often subsidized) rein. Radio and TV stations are even forced to give free time to the politicos. This leads me to another reason why some people – in this case, the political class – loves electoral gag laws. One consequence of such laws is to protect established political parties against newcomers and challengers (like the NCC). Isn’t nice for the politicians to face only empty criticism from other politicians and generally statist intellectuals? One advantage of free – really free – speech is that it helps control the political establishment. Now, generalized free speech also has benefits (and not only costs) for the rulers, as it allows them to gauge the state of public opinion. The economic theory of dictatorship stresses the problem of the tyrant who gets little reliable information because he hears only what his courtesans and potential successors want to tell him. What if the state could tolerate public opinion noise that serves its information purposes, and forbid threatening opinions? Perhaps gag laws are a timid first step in this management of public opinion. The way we may lose our freedom of speech is by a gradual extension of well-meaning restrictions. Add “sexual orientation” and “political orientation” to hate laws. If equality of expression is good during election campaigns, why not during other phases of the political process? Extend gag laws to referenda and periods of national crises. If the money an individual spends to express his opinion is regulated, why not also limit the time he spends to the same purpose? Why not regulate Internet activities? The slope is very slippery. Free speech can help citizens chain Leviathan. No wonder he wants to limit it.