AT Authoritarianism The market and private influences regulate speech in the same way the government does, but the government at least is checked by the people Brison 98 Brison, Susan J. (Brison is a professor of philosophy at UChicago) "The Autonomy Defense of Free Speech." Ethics 108.2 (1998): 312-39. JSTOR. Web. 17 Dec. 2016. [Premier] we need to ask whether private pressures on speech are less violative of In addition, and market¶ constraints autonomy, than are governmental restrictions.¶ the autonomy audience on this¶ account, public, 93 Those presenting¶ argument against governmental restrictions fail[s]¶ to acknowledge the ways in which the on speech market, can¶ restrict access to speech, and undermine autonomy.¶ or the private sphere, thus, on their own view, A no argument has¶ governmental policy of allowing this to go unchecked cannot be defended by appeal to the value of autonomy, as been given for supposing the market-induced restrictions to be more respectful¶ autonomy than of a well-reasoned and carefully implemented¶ governmental policy the would be. In our society, for example, media [is]¶ not only the main sources of information for people, mass are most but¶ also the selectors of what Decisions about what¶ speech to give people access to are not only based on information we receive.¶ 94 the profitability, but are influenced by veto corporations’¶ advertisers’ effective¶ judgments of also power concerning content.¶ 95 Why should we assume that government¶ regulators would have even less pure motives in deciding what¶ speech to restrict? The exclusive concern with governmental skewing of¶ the market may arise from the view that the default position is no there is agency¶ involved in the marketplace as well as censorship,¶ rather than censorship of the market. The view that in government is noticeably absent¶ in, for example, Oliver Wendell reference to power of the thought to get itself Holmes’s famous ‘‘the¶ accepted in the competition of the and it is rarely mentioned in discussions of autonomy and free¶ speech.96 An implicit premise in the market,’’¶ autonomy defense of free speech is¶ that only governmental regulation of speech can be autonomy undermining,¶ but no argument is given for this assumption.
AT Authoritarianism The market and private influences regulate speech in the same way the government does, but the government at least is checked by the people Brison 98 Brison, Susan J. (Brison is a professor of philosophy at UChicago) "The Autonomy Defense of Free Speech." Ethics 108.2 (1998): 312-39. JSTOR. Web. 17 Dec. 2016. [Premier] In addition, we need to ask whether private pressures and market¶ constraints on speech are less violative of audience autonomy, on this¶ account, than are public, governmental restrictions.¶ 93 Those presenting¶ the autonomy argument against governmental restrictions on speech fail[s]¶ to acknowledge the ways in which the market, or the private sphere, can¶ restrict access to speech, and thus, on their own view, undermine autonomy.¶ A governmental policy of allowing this to go unchecked cannot be defended by appeal to the value of autonomy, as no argument has¶ been given for supposing the market-induced restrictions to be more respectful¶ of autonomy than a well-reasoned and carefully implemented¶ governmental policy would be. In our society, for example, the mass media [is]¶ are not only the main sources of information for most people, but¶ also the selectors of what information we receive.¶ 94 Decisions about what¶ speech to give people access to are not only based on the corporations’¶ judgments of profitability, but are also influenced by advertisers’ effective¶ veto power concerning content.¶ 95 Why should we assume that government¶ regulators would have even less pure motives in deciding what¶ speech to restrict? The exclusive concern with governmental skewing of¶ the market may arise from the view that the default position is no censorship,¶ rather than censorship of the market. The view that there is agency¶ involved in the marketplace as well as in government is noticeably absent¶ in, for example, Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous reference to ‘‘the¶ power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,’’¶ and it is rarely mentioned in discussions of autonomy and free¶ speech.96 An implicit premise in the autonomy defense of free speech is¶ that only governmental regulation of speech can be autonomy undermining,¶ but no argument is given for this assumption.
Premier-Debate-Brief-JF17.docx