Alexander Meiklejohn - On Free Speech

On Free Speech

Meiklejohn is known as an advocate of First Amendment freedoms and was a member of the National Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Meiklejohn is one of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and democracy. He argues that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal. Eric Barendt has called the defence of free speech on the grounds of democracy "probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies".

Although Meiklejohn died in 1964 his ideas are still informing the ongoing discussion about how the United States "experiment" in democracy is best understood. This is happening in a very pointed way in early twenty-first centuary attempts to regulate the ways in which campaigns for political office are financed, and reactions to such attempts by the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in particular, has adopted Meiklejohn's interpretation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Jeremiah Nixon v. Shrink Misouri et al., 528 U.S. 377 (2000), at 401, Justice Breyer (joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) wrote a concurring opinion in support of such regulation. In response to protestations that such laws violate citizen's rights to free speech, Breyer held that there were free spech arguments on both sides of the issue. He said that properly framed regulations limiting monetary contributions could substantially expand the opportunity for freedom of expression rather than limit it. He pointed out that the integrity of the electoral process needs to be maintained since that is the means by which a free society translates political advocacy into concrete political action, and that regulating the financing of political campaigns is integral to that advocacy. In doing so Breyer cited Meiklejohn's interpretation of the First Amendment which gives emphasis to public need rather than individual prerogative. Arguably at least, the issues in cases like this go to the heart of any discussion about what United States democracy is or ought to be, because such discussions will involve not only the way money is related to speech and the nature of partisan political debate, but also the matter of government regulations and how much attention should be given to collective needs as compared with individual ones — all of which were central to Meiklekohn's concern about the very meaning of freedom. See Eugene H. Perry, A Socrates for all Seasons — Alexander Meiklejohn and Deliberative Democracy, (Bloomington,Indiana: iUniverse Press, 2011).